Bold Justice: May 21, 2018

Bold Justice: Five more down!

We have opinions! This week, the Supreme Court issued five more opinions, leaving just 39. Here we go!

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

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 29 (one of the opinions this week resolved two consolidated cases. The court usually issues the remainder of its opinions by the end of June. Here are this week’s opinions:

In the big news of the week, the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports betting, on the grounds that the law violated the anti-commandeering doctrine. Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that PASPA "unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do," unconstitutionally infringing on states' sovereignty. The ruling resolves two consolidated cases, Christie v. NCAA and New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association v. NCAA, in which New Jersey had argued that Congress had unconstitutionally commandeered New Jersey into enforcing federal programs by requiring New Jersey to adhere to PASPA's gambling restrictions.

In Dahda v. United States, the court ruled that wiretap orders exceeding the granting judge’s territorial jurisdiction were not facially invalid. Los Dahda was convicted on 15 criminal counts relating to the operation of a marijuana drug distribution network. At trial, the prosecution relied on evidence obtained through wiretaps on Dahda's phone and on the phones of his co-defendants. Dahda moved to suppress the evidence obtained via the wiretaps, arguing that the wiretap orders were invalid because they applied outside of the district court's jurisdiction (that is, they extended beyond the state territory over which the district court had jurisdiction). The district court denied Dahda's motion. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed that the wiretap orders extended beyond the court's jurisdiction, but concluded that they were not invalid. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court agreed. The court ruled that because all other parts of the order were valid, and because none of the intercepted communications that occurred outside the judge's jurisdiction were submitted as evidence during trial, the orders were not facially invalid.

In McCoy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court voted 6 - 3 to hold that it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the accused's objection. Robert McCoy was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated at trial when his attorney conceded McCoy's guilt, even though McCoy had expressly instructed his attorney not to concede guilt. The attorney believed the evidence against McCoy was overwhelming and that conceding guilt might save McCoy from the death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that that a defense counsel's professional strategic opinion could not overcome a defendant's right to decide whether to admit guilt.

In Byrd v. United States, the court ruled that that a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter's permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement, reversing the ruling of the Third Circuit. Terrence Byrd pleaded guilty to charges of possessing heroin with intent to distribute and possessing body armor as a prohibited person. Byrd was arrested after police officers found heroin and body armor in the trunk of a rental car Byrd was driving. The car had been rented by Byrd's fiance, and Byrd was not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement. Byrd sought to suppress the evidence the officers found, arguing that the officers' search and some circumstances of the traffic stop violated his constitutional rights. The Third Circuit concluded that because Byrd was not listed as the renter nor as an authorized driver on the rental agreement, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to the car and therefore could not challenge the constitutionality of the officers' search.

In reversing the Third Circuit, the court stressed that the fact that an authorized rental car driver has Fourth Amendment rights in the car did not end the inquiry in this particular case. On remand, the Court of Appeals was to consider 1) whether a person who procures a rental car through a third party for the purpose of committing a crime retains those rights; and 2) whether the police officers in this case had probable cause to search the car.

Finally, in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling that the case was moot and that the Ninth Circuit had therefore lacked the authority to rule in the 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 court did not have the 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. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the defendants’ claims were moot because the were no longer subject to the shackling policy and would not be subject to it in the future unless they were suspected of committing other criminal acts.

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

SCOTUS trivia

There are thirteen circuit courts of appeal. Twelve of those courts are defined by terrority--the number circuit courts and the District of Columbia court are general jurisdiction courts that preside over a particular geographical area. The thirteen court is the Federal Circuit. Your question: What does the Federal Circuit do?

Choose an answer to find out!

Federal court action

Confirmations

Last week, the Senate confirmed four additional nominees:

Amy St. Eve was confirmed on a vote of 91 - 0 to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
Michael Scudder was confirmed on a vote of 90 - 0 to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
John Nalbandian was confirmed on a vote of 53 - 45 to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Joel Carson III was confirmed on a vote of 77 - 21 to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The Senate has now confirmed 39 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 146 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 146 vacancies, 66 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 31 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. There are 85 pending nominations to seats tracked by Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee met on May 17.

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 William Kayatta, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and a judge you oughta know. He joined the court in 2013 after a nomination from President Barack Obama. A native of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, Kayatta earned his bachelor's, magna cum laude, from Amherst College in 1976, and his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1979.

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.
We expect the Senate Judiciary Committee to meet to consider additional nominations.

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: May 21, 2018

Contents

Bold Justice: Five more down!

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