Bold Justice: March 29, 2021
![]() Welcome to the March 29 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. At the start of the month, we wondered if this March would follow the proverb, In like a lion, out like a lamb. Perhaps this month’s been a leonine lamb, as SCOTUS has been bustling with activity–its March sitting will draw to a close this week and the April sitting is on its way. Stay up to date on the latest news by following Ballotpedia on Twitter or subscribing to the Daily Brew. ![]() Court announcementsOn March 19, the court postponed hearing the case Terry v. United States, removing it from the April argument session. The Biden administration had changed the U.S. Department of Justice's position in the case, so the court appointed a lawyer to argue in place of the U.S. government and rescheduled the oral argument. On March 25, the court rescheduled argument in Terry for May 4, the only case to be argued during the court’s May sitting. March sittingThe Supreme Court continues its March argument session this week, hearing cases remotely and streaming live argument audio to the public. The court is conducting proceedings this way in accordance with public health guidance in response to COVID-19. SCOTUS will hear arguments in four cases for a total of three hours of oral argument. Click the links below to read more about these cases: March 29
March 30
March 31
OpinionsSCOTUS issued two opinion(s) since our March 22 issue. The court has issued 21 opinions so far this term. Four cases were decided without argument. On March 25, the court issued an opinion in the consolidated cases Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court and Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer, which originated from the Montana and Minnesota Supreme Courts, respectively. These cases concerned state court jurisdiction related to the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. In both cases, plaintiffs were involved in car accidents in Ford vehicles (one in Montana and one in Minnesota) and later filed liability claims against the manufacturer. Ford filed for dismissal in the cases, arguing the state courts didn’t have jurisdiction to hear the cases. Both the Minnesota and Montana state supreme courts ruled that state courts were an appropriate forum for the cases. Ford appealed to SCOTUS for review. In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the state courts’ rulings, holding that the connection between the plaintiffs’ liability claims in the two cases and Ford’s activities in both states allowed the state courts to have jurisdiction. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the majority opinion, her first of the term. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Gorsuch’s concurrence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case since the case was argued prior to her joining the court. Click here to read more about the outcome of these cases. The court also issued an opinion in Torres v. Madrid, a case originating from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that concerned a claim of excessive force against police officers and whether the use of physical force to restrain a person constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. While attempting to arrest an individual at an Albuquerque apartment complex, New Mexico state police officers Richard Williamson and Janice Madrid approached Roxanne Torres in the parking lot to discover her identity. Thinking the police were carjackers, Torres got in her car and attempted to drive away. The officers ordered her to halt and shot her twice. Torres drove from the scene and was treated at a hospital for her injuries. Later, Torres was arrested and pleaded no contest to three crimes related to the event. Torres filed a civil lawsuit against the officers in U.S. district court claiming they had used excessive force and violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The district court ruled the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and there had been no seizure because the detention was unsuccessful–i.e., Torres left the scene. The 10th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, joining an existing circuit split on this question of law. In a 5-3 opinion, SCOTUS vacated the 10th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, ruling that using physical force on an individual with the intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the individual does not submit and is not subdued. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Click here for more information about the ruling. GrantsSCOTUS accepted two cases since our March 22 issue which will be scheduled for argument during the upcoming October 2021-2022 term. The court has granted review in 10 cases for the term, which is scheduled to begin on October 4, 2021.
Upcoming SCOTUS datesHere are the court’s upcoming dates of interest:
SCOTUS has released 21 opinions so far this term. SCOTUS issued its first opinion in 1791–what was the name of that case? a) Best v. Warms Choose an answer to find out! ![]() Nominations and confirmationsPresident Biden announced no new nominees and the U.S. Senate has confirmed no new nominees since our March 22 issue. President Biden has not yet made any federal judicial nominations during his term. In comparison to previous presidential administrations, Presidents Donald Trump (R) and George H.W. Bush (R) made their first Article III judicial appointments by June 1 of the first year of their presidencies. Presidents George W. Bush (R) and Ronald Reagan (R) made their first appointments by August 1, and Presidents Barack Obama (D) and Bill Clinton (D) made their first Article III judicial appointments by October 1 of their first years in office. These figures do not include appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. VacanciesThe federal judiciary currently has 72 vacancies. As of publication, there were no pending nominations. For more information on judicial vacancies during Biden’s term, click here. Do you love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count, published at the start of each month, monitors all the faces and places moving in, moving out, and moving on in the federal judiciary. Click here for our most current count. Need a daily fix of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? Click here for continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees. Or, keep an eye on our list for updates on federal judicial nominations. Put on your best grunge flannels and cue up Peter Gabriel’s classic “In Your Eyes” on the boombox, because it’s time to travel back to a bygone era known as 1989 to 1993. This edition of Bold Justice takes a look at President George H.W. Bush's (R) judicial nominees.
When President Bush assumed office in January 1989, he inherited 37 life-term vacancies out of 757 total Article III judgeships (4.89%), the lowest vacancy percentage of all presidents since the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan (R) in January 1981. Of his Article III appointees–not including Supreme Court nominations–Bush appointed 42 judges to the United States Courts of Appeal, 148 judges to U.S. district courts, and one judge to the U.S. Court of International Trade. ![]() We’ll be back on April 12 with a new edition of Bold Justice. Until then, gaveling out! ContributionsKate Carsella compiled and edited this newsletter, with contributions from Jace Lington, Brittony Maag, and Sara Reynolds.
|
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.
Archive
2021
- Bold Justice: November 1, 2021
- Bold Justice: October 12, 2021
- Bold Justice: October 4, 2021
- Bold Justice: September 13, 2021
- Bold Justice: August 9, 2021
- Bold Justice: July 19, 2021
- Bold Justice: July 12, 2021
- Bold Justice: June 7, 2021
- Bold Justice: May 10, 2021
- Bold Justice: May 3, 2021
- Bold Justice: April 26, 2021
- Bold Justice: April 19, 2021
- Bold Justice: April 12, 2021
- Bold Justice: March 22, 2021
- Bold Justice: March 8, 2021
- Bold Justice: March 1, 2021
- Bold Justice: February 22, 2021
- Bold Justice: February 8, 2021
- Bold Justice: January 18, 2021
- Bold Justice: January 11, 2021
2020
- Bold Justice: December 7, 2020
- Bold Justice: November 9, 2020
- Bold Justice: November 2, 2020
- Bold Justice: October 12, 2020
- Bold Justice: October 5, 2020
- Bold Justice: September 30, 2020
- Bold Justice: September 14, 2020
- Bold Justice: August 10, 2020
- Bold Justice: August 3, 2020
- Bold Justice: July 13, 2020
- Bold Justice: June 29, 2020
- Bold Justice: June 22, 2020
- Bold Justice: June 8, 2020
- Bold Justice: May 11, 2020
- Bold Justice: May 4, 2020
- Bold Justice: April 6, 2020
- Bold Justice: March 23, 2020
- Bold Justice: March 9, 2020
- Bold Justice: March 2, 2020
- Bold Justice: February 24, 2020
- Bold Justice: February 10, 2020
- Bold Justice: January 20, 2020
- Bold Justice: January 13, 2020
2019
- Bold Justice: December 9, 2019
- Bold Justice: December 2, 2019
- Bold Justice: November 12, 2019
- Bold Justice: November 4, 2019
- Bold Justice: October 14, 2019
- Bold Justice: October 7, 2019
- Bold Justice: September 9, 2019
- Bold Justice: August 5, 2019
- Bold Justice: July 1, 2019
- Bold Justice: June 17, 2019
- Bold Justice: June 3, 2019
- Bold Justice: May 20, 2019
- Bold Justice: May 6, 2019
- Bold Justice: April 29, 2019
- Bold Justice: April 22, 2019
- Bold Justice: April 15, 2019
- Bold Justice: April 1, 2019
- Bold Justice: March 25, 2019
- Bold Justice: March 18, 2019
- Bold Justice: February 25, 2019
- Bold Justice: February 18, 2019
- Bold Justice: January 21, 2019
- Bold Justice: January 14, 2019
- Bold Justice: January 7, 2019
2018
- Bold Justice: December 3, 2018
- Bold Justice: November 26, 2018
- Bold Justice: November 5, 2018
- Bold Justice: October 29, 2018
- Bold Justice: October 8, 2018
- Bold Justice: October 1, 2018
- Bold Justice: September 6, 2018
- Bold Justice: August 6, 2018
- Bold Justice: July 2, 2018
- Bold Justice: June 25, 2018
- Bold Justice: June 18, 2018
- Bold Justice: June 11, 2018
- Bold Justice: June 4, 2018
- Bold Justice: May 21, 2018
- Bold Justice: May 14, 2018
- Bold Justice: May 7, 2018
- Bold Justice: April 30, 2018
- Bold Justice: April 23, 2018
- Bold Justice: April 16, 2018
- Bold Justice: April 9, 2018
- Bold Justice: April 2, 2018
- Bold Justice: March 26, 2018
- Bold Justice: March 19, 2018
- Bold Justice: March 12, 2018
- Bold Justice: March 5, 2018
- Bold Justice: February 12, 2018
- Bold Justice: January 29, 2018
- Bold Justice: January 22, 2018
- Bold Justice: January 15, 2018
- Bold Justice: January 8, 2018
2017
Why Bold Justice?
Well, there’s a story behind it, and we’re happy to credit Justice Samuel Alito for the inspiration. Back in October of 2014, Justice Alito joined his fellow Supreme Court Yale Law alumni, Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, for a panel as part of the law school’s alumni weekend (video below). During the discussion, the moderator asked the audience if they could guess which of the three justices on the panel served as the inspiration for a coffee house to name one of their blends of coffee, Bold Justice. Justice Alito responded, “Obviously, it’s me.”
He went on to tell the story of how, during his days as a Third Circuit judge, his law clerks participated in a Newark, New Jersey, coffee shop’s year-long promotion wherein if customers sampled every blend for one year, the customers could then create and name a blend of coffee. Justice Alito described Bold Justice as a blend that was “designed for about three o’clock in the afternoon if you’re working and you’re starting to fall asleep, if you have this, it will jolt you awake.” A blend of courts and coffee: sounds perfect to us!
|