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

Bold Justice: May 7, 2018

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bold Justice: And we wait

And still we wait for more opinions from the Supreme Court! While we wait, let’s take another look at some of the biggest cases of the term. Off we go!

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 a theme of this term: Redistricting. The court heard three major redistricting cases this year:

  • In October, the court heard Gill v. Whitford. In 2011, Wisconsin adopted a plan for state legislative district boundaries, Act 43, under which elections to the Wisconsin state legislature were held during the 2012, 2014, and 2016 election cycles. The petitioners, 12 registered Democrats in Wisconsin, alleged that the redistricting plan intentionally and systematically diluted the voting strength of Democratic voters statewide in elections to the state legislature, resulting in an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. A divided three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, convened under 28 U.S.C. §2284, agreed with the petitioners and invalidated Act 43. The Supreme Court of the United States prevented enforcement of that decision pending arguments before the court on the merits.
  • Next, in March, the court heard Benisek v. Lamone. Seven Republicans, all of whom lived and voted in Maryland's Sixth Congressional District prior to its reconfiguration in the 2010 redistricting cycle, claim that state lawmakers altered the boundaries of the 6th District in order to dilute the impact of Republican votes. The plaintiffs allege that this action was deliberate and effective, constituting a violation of their First Amendment right to protection from official retaliation for political beliefs. A district court judge rejected the plaintiffs’ claims, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed.
  • Finally, in April, the court heard two consolidated cases, both captioned Abbott v. Perez. In August 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued two rulings finding that Texas' 2013 maps for congressional districts 27 and 35 and nine state House districts had been drawn with racially discriminatory intent, unconstitutionally diluting the impact of racial minority votes in those districts. The appellants (state officials) disputed these rulings on both procedural and substantive grounds and appealed the decisions to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stay tuned for updates in all three redistricting 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

On the current Supreme Court, the vast majority of justices served on one of the courts of appeal before their nominations. In fact, only one of the current justices was not nominated directly from a court of appeals. Which justice is it?

Choose an answer to find out!


Federal court action

Confirmations

The Senate did not confirm any additional nominees this week.

Nominations

President Trump did not announce any additional nominees this week.

Vacancies

There are currently 148 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 148 vacancies, 80 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 72 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 federal court vacancies 5.7.2018.png


Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee did not meet last week.

The Committee is scheduled to meet on May 9 and May 10 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. We’re taking a closer look at circuit court judges. This week, let’s get to know Jeffrey R. Howard, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. He joined the court in 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush. A native of Claremont, New Hampshire, Howard graduated from Plymouth State College with his bachelor's degree in 1978, and later graduated from Georgetown University Law Center with his J.D. in 1981.

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 nominees.

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_7,_2018&oldid=8438619"