Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Bold Justice: May 14, 2018

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bold Justice: The clock is ticking

Just six weeks left in the term and 45 more opinions to come. While we wait, let’s take another look at some of the biggest cases of the term. Ready?

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

Arguments for the October 2017 term have concluded, and we all have a chance to catch our collective court-watcher breath for a moment. In total, the Supreme Court heard argument in 69 cases this term, all of which you can track on our term overview page. Of those 69, the court has issued opinions in 24. The court usually issues the remainder of its opinions by the end of June.

This week, let’s take a closer look at three of the term’s high-profile cases: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, about a Colorado public accommodations law that intersects with civil rights, Husted v. Randolph Institute, about Ohio’s process for purging inactive voters from voting lists, and Carpenter v. United States, about the government’s ability to access cell phone tower records without a warrant.

  • In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will decide whether Colorado's public accommodations law requiring a baker to make a wedding cake for a same-sex married couple violates the baker's rights to freedom of religious exercise and freedom of expression under the First Amendment. A same-sex couple solicited a Colorado business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake for them. The owner, Jack C. Phillips, refused to make the cake, citing his religious objections to same-sex weddings. The couple filed discrimination charges under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). The Colorado Civil Rights Commission issued a cease-and-desist order to Masterpiece Cakeshop, which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld over Phillips' allegations that both the order and CADA itself violated his First Amendment freedoms of expression and religious exercise.
  • In Husted v. Randolph Institute, the court will decide whether Ohio's Supplemental Process for deregistering inactive voters from its eligible voter rolls violate the National Voter Registration Act. Ohio created a process, called the Supplemental Process, to identify and deregister voters from its voter rolls who were no longer eligible to vote due to a change of residence. Under this process, the board of elections in each Ohio county compiled a list of registered voters that had not had any defined voter activity for a period of two years. Two years of inactivity triggered the county board of elections to send a confirmation of address notice to the voter. Voters were removed from the voter rolls if they failed to vote within the subsequent four-year period and if they failed to either re-register to vote or respond to the notice from the county board of elections. A federal district court upheld the process, but a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the process violated Section 8(b)(2) of the National Voter Registration Act.
  • And in Carpenter v. United States, the court will decide whether the government must obtain a warrant before obtaining records from cell phone towers. Based on information obtained from a different suspect's cell phone records, the FBI arrested Timothy Carpenter in connection with a string of armed robberies. The FBI did not obtain a warrant for the records. Instead, the FBI relied on the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which allows cell phone providers to disclose records under certain circumstances without a warrant. Carpenter moved to suppress the records before trial, arguing that the FBI's warrantless search of the records violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A federal district court denied the motion to suppress, and Carpenter was convicted. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions, holding that the use of the cell tower data did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and, as such, no warrant was required in order to use the data.

Stay tuned for updates in these cases and the other remaining opinions.

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

Supreme Court cases 4.9.2018.png

SCOTUS trivia

Each of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals is assigned a Supreme Court justice, according to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42. The justice assigned to the circuit rules on certain motions arising within the circuit and on some types of appeals to the Supreme Court. Only one of the justices is assigned to more than two circuits. Which justice is the only justice assigned to three circuits?

Choose an answer to find out!

Federal court action

Confirmations

Last week, the Senate confirmed two additional nominees:

  • Michael B. Brennan, confirmed to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
  • Kurt D. Engelhardt, confirmed to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The Senate has now confirmed 35 of President Trump’s nominees to federal courts tracked in Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count.

Nominations

President Trump did not announce any additional nominees last week.

Vacancies

There are currently 148 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 148 vacancies, 69 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 79 pending nominations to seats tracked by Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:

Longest judicial vacancies 5.14.18.png

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee met on May 9 to hold hearings for additional nominees and on May 10 to consider reporting nominees for a full confirmation vote in the Senate. The Committee voted to advance these nominees:

The Committee may meet next week to consider additional nominees.

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. Right now, we’re taking a closer look at circuit court judges. This week, let’s get to know David Barron, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and a judge you oughta know. He joined the court in 2014 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. A native of Washington, D.C., Barron earned his bachelor's (1989) and J.D. (1994), both magna cum laude, from Harvard University.

Looking ahead

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

  • We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to release orders and possibly new opinions.

Why subscribe to Bold Justice?

Stay on top of the whirlwind world of the federal judiciary


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

2020

2019

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!

v • e
Ballotpedia-Logo-UPDATED-white background.jpg
Ballotpedia coverage by project
Federal
State
Local
Policy
News
Indexes


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Bold_Justice:_May_14,_2018&oldid=8438682"