Bold Justice: March 26, 2018

Bold Justice: Redistricting returns, plus opinions and orders

With one more week of March arguments, the justices are preparing to hear one of the major redistricting cases of the year. That, plus more arguments, opinions, and orders. Strap in!

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

This coming week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in five cases, including a marquee redistricting case from Maryland, Benisek v. Lamone.

On Wednesday, the court will hear Benisek v. Lamone, a political redistricting case. The case was brought by seven Maryland Republicans, all of whom lived and voted in Maryland's 6th Congressional District prior to its reconfiguration during the 2010 redistricting cycle. The plaintiffs claim that state lawmakers altered the boundaries of the 6th District in order to dilute the impact of Republican votes. The plaintiffs further argue that this action was deliberate and effective, constituting a violation of their First Amendment right to protection from official retaliation for their political beliefs.

Benisek v. Lamone will be the second case involving alleged partisan gerrymandering that the high court will hear in the 2017-2018 term. The other case, Gill v. Whitford, was brought by 12 Wisconsin Democrats who allege that state lawmakers drafted a state legislative district map that deliberately and illegally dilutes Democratic votes.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in either Benisek or Gill (or both), it will mark the first time that the high court has struck down a redistricting plan on the grounds of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. In contrast with racial gerrymandering, on which the Supreme Court has issued rulings in the past affirming that such practices violate federal law, the court has not to date issued a ruling establishing clear precedent on the question of partisan gerrymandering.

On Monday, the court will hear arguments in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez. This is a case about a court's authority to hear a case. A court can only hear live controversies—that is, a court can only consider cases where the parties' dispute is ongoing. Generally, a court does not have authority to consider a case if the case is moot. A case is moot if the dispute between the parties has been resolved and the court's ruling would not change anything.

In this case, four defendants who faced charges in federal district court challenged the policy of shackling all pretrial detainees when they appeared for pretrial hearings, regardless of the defendant's physical condition or assessed risk. The district court dismissed their challenges. The government argued that the cases were moot and that therefore the court did not authority to rule on the defendants' claims; by the time of the appeal, all four defendants' cases had concluded, so they were no longer subject to the shackling policy. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit disagreed, concluding that it did have authority to consider the defendants' claims.

On Monday, the court will also hear China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh. This is a case about the time limits for filing class action lawsuits. A class action is a lawsuit in which a large group, or class, of plaintiffs sue together. The class is identified by characteristics rather than by name--there are usually some named plaintiffs, and then the class encompasses all others who are similarly situated.

Under a case called American Pipe, individual plaintiffs may file claims for the first time after class certification has been denied, even if the statute of limitations has expired, because the pending class action tolls the statute of limitations. In this case, plaintiffs sought to file a new class action after class certification had been denied in a different suit. The district court dismissed their claims, concluding that the new class action was untimely. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, holding that the tolling rule from American Pipe applied to new class actions to the same extent as it applied to individual plaintiffs' claims.

On Tuesday, the court will hear Hughes v. United States. This is a case about about the extent to which a defendant who enters into a plea deal is eligible for a reduction in his or her sentence if the United States Sentencing Commission retroactively reduces the sentencing range applicable to that defendant's crimes. Erik Hughes pleaded guilty to two criminal counts. His plea agreement dictated that he would be sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. After he entered his guilty plea, the U.S. Sentencing Commission retroactively reduced the Sentencing Guidelines range for the crimes to which he had pleaded guilty. Hughes moved for a reduction in his sentence. The district court dismissed his request, ruling that under Freeman v. United States, Hughes was not entitled to a sentencing reduction because his original sentence had not been based on the Sentencing Guidelines. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.

The other case the court will hear on Tuesday is Koons v. United States, which also deals with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Freeman v. United States. This is a case about the interaction between the U.S. Sentencing Commission's sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences. Several defendants provided assistance to law enforcement. As part of their guilty pleas, the government requested and the court granted a reduction in their sentences as a result of that assistance. The reduction for assistance meant that they were sentenced to periods of imprisonment below the mandatory minimums for the crimes to which they pleaded guilty. After their pleas, the United States Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the sentencing guidelines for the crimes for which they were convicted. The defendants requested a reduction in their sentences. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that they were not entitled to a reduction because the reductions they received in exchange for providing assistance were based on mandatory minimums, not on the sentencing guidelines.

Last week, the Supreme Court issued three additional opinions, bringing its total for the term up to 16:

In Marinello v. United States, the court ruled 7 - 2 to reverse the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. This was a case about the Omnibus Clause of the Internal Revenue Code. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to convict a defendant under that provision, the government must show “that there is a 'nexus' between the defendant’s conduct and a particular administrative proceeding, such as an investigation, an audit, or other targeted administrative action.”

In Ayestas v. Davis, the court ruled 9 -0 to reverse the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The court ruled that the Fifth Circuit had applied the incorrect legal standard in evaluating a defendant’s request for assistance under federal law to investigate a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to introduce evidence that might have mitigated his sentence. The court concluded that the proper legal standard was whether the assistance was reasonably necessary, not whether the defendant had demonstrated a substantial need for the assistance.

Finally, in Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, the court ruled 9 -0 to affirm the ruling of the California First District Court of Appeal that state courts retained jurisdiction over claims brought under the 1933 Securities Act.

The court also agreed to hear one additional case and removed one case from its docket:

The court added Nielsen v. Preap to its docket for the term.
The court removed Salt River Project v. Solarcity Corp. from its docket at the request of the parties. Media reports suggested that parties settled the case.

As of publication today, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in 76 cases so far this term; of those 76, the court has heard arguments in 51 cases.This number does not include Salt River Project v. Solarcity Corp., which the court removed from its docket last week. If the court follows its practice from previous years, it will continue to hear arguments in cases this term through April 2018. Although it may continue to consider new appeals, its current number of accepted cases is higher than total number of cases it agreed to hear last term (71). With arguments scheduled through much of April, the court has a limited number of argument days left to fill.

Wondering where the cases are coming from this term? Check out this chart showing the number of appeals from each lower court:

SCOTUS trivia

This week’s question is about SCOTUS geography. Do you know where the current Supreme Court justices are from? Your question for the week: How many of the current justices hail from states west of the Mississippi?

Choose an answer to find out!

Federal court action

Confirmations

The United States Senate did not confirm any additional nominees this week. As of publication, the Senate has confirmed 29 of President Trump's nominees on courts tracked in Ballotpedia's Federal Vacancy Count. There are an additional 57 nominees awaiting a Senate confirmation vote.

Nominations

President Trump did not announce any additional nominees since our last issue.

Vacancies

As of publication, there were 147 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 147 vacancies, 93 have no nominee as of yet during President Trump’s administration. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and other outlets, an additional 32 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. There are 57 pending nominations to life-term, Article III judicial positions. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee met last week to consider nominations but did not report any additional nominees for a full vote in the Senate.

As of publication, the Committee is not scheduled to meet this week.

Love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancies information? We figured. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count, which is published on the last Wednesday of every month, monitors all of the faces, places, and spaces moving in, moving out, and moving on in the federal judiciary.

Need a daily fix? Our Federal Vacancy Warning System’s got you covered with continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees.

Or, if you prefer, we maintain a list of individuals nominated by President Trump.

A judge you oughta know

Every week, we at Ballotpedia want to highlight a federal judge or judicial nominee. We’re in our review of President Donald Trump’s list of 25 individuals from which he indicated he would choose nominees to fill Supreme Court vacancies. This week, let’s get to know Amul Thapar, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and a judge you oughta know. Thapar joined the court in 2017 after being nominated by President Donald Trump. Prior to his elevation to the Sixth Circuit, Thapar was a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Born in Detroit, Michigan, Thapar graduated from Boston College with his bachelor's degree in 1991. He earned his J.D. from the University of California at Berkeley School of Law in 1994.

Looking ahead

Here’s what we’re looking ahead to this week:

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in five cases.
We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to issue orders and possibly opinions this week.

Why subscribe to Bold Justice?

Need to stay on top of the whirlwind world of the federal judiciary of the United States?

Join us, counsel, as we lay the foundation for what happened this week in the world of federal courts. Our record will reflect the cases SCOTUS heard, which judges retired, which were nominated, and what important rulings come out of other federal courts. Call us as your next witness and get the most in-depth coverage of federal courts available to your inbox. Subscribe for free today.

Ballotpedia has been providing new areas of coverage, performing in-depth analyses, and developing new tools to help keep our readers in the know since 2006. This is one more resource to keep you informed—one that can be delivered to your inbox once a week.

Bold Justice: March 26, 2018

Contents

Bold Justice: Redistricting returns, plus opinions and orders

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

SCOTUS trivia

Federal court action

Confirmations

Nominations

Vacancies

Committee action

A judge you oughta know

Looking ahead

Why subscribe to Bold Justice?

Archive

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Why Bold Justice?

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION