|
|
|
|
| Welcome to the November 26 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about SCOTUS and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Can't wait to gobble up more judicial news this fall? Follow us on Twitter or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the most up-to-date political information. |
This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in five cases. All of the cases came to the court through its appellate jurisdiction (most of the court’s cases are appeals from federal courts of appeal or state supreme courts). Three of the cases are on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The court has heard 23 cases so far this term. As of publication, it has agreed to hear 57 cases. In its previous term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 69 cases.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS will hear this week:
November 26
- In Apple v. Pepper, Robert Pepper and other plaintiffs filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple Inc., alleging Apple was monopolizing the market for iPhone apps. Apple controls which apps can be sold through its App Store and keeps 30 percent of sales from apps developed by third-party developers that are sold in the App Store. The district court dismissed the case, ruling consumers of iPhone apps are purchasing directly from app developers, not Apple, and therefore could not sue for antitrust violations according to precedent from a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court reversed the dismissal, ruling consumers are purchasing from Apple, not the app developers.
The issue: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.
- Alaska state troopers Luis Nieves and Bryce Weight arrested Russell Bartlett. In Nieves v. Bartlett, Bartlett sued Nieves and Weight for false arrest, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and retaliatory arrest. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed with the district court that Nieves and Weight had had probable cause to arrest Bartlett for harassment, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or assault. The district court granted summary judgment to Nieves and Weight on all counts. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the district court's ruling on the false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution charges, but reversed the ruling on the retaliatory arrest charge.
The issue: In Hartman v. Moore, 54 7 U.S. 250 (2006), this Court held that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a matter of law. Does probable cause likewise defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under § 1983?
November 27
- In Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, Troy Lambert filed a class action against Nutraceutical Corp. for making false claims about a dietary supplement that was supposed to increase sexual performance. After a district court declined to let the class action move forward, Lambert filed an appeal, but he did not do so within 14 days, as required by the court.
The issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules—such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal an order granting or denying class-action certification—and can excuse a party’s failure to file timely within the deadline specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), in conflict with the decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th and 11th Circuits.
- In Carpenter v. Murphy, Patrick Murphy was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1999. He argued that because the murder occurred on a reservation, the Major Crimes Act of 1907 meant the state of Oklahoma did not have the jurisdiction to try him. The Tenth Circuit agreed with Murphy. Mike Carpenter, the warden of the state penitentiary where Murphy resides, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The issue: Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an "Indian reservation" today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).
November 28
- Timbs v. Indiana comes on a writ of certiorari to the Indiana Supreme Court. When Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to a drug charge, he was ordered as part of his sentence to forfeit his Land Rover, on the grounds that he had transported drugs in the vehicle. A state appeals court ruled in favor of Timbs, who argued that the forfeiture was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's clause prohibiting excessive fines. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court had never ruled that the excessive fines clause applied to state governments.
The issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Proposed revisions to SCOTUS rules
This month, SCOTUS proposed revisions to rules related to the writ of certiorari. The court uses certiorari to decide which cases it hears. The revisions proposed:
- requiring petitions for writs of certiorari to include a list of all proceedings in state and federal courts related to the case in question;
- making reply briefs due three days earlier;
- decreasing merit briefs from 15,000 to 13,000 words, reply briefs from 6,000 to 4,500 words, and amicus briefs from 9,000 to 8,000 words, among others.
Click here to read the proposed revisions. |
Certiorari, also referred to as a "writ of certiorari," is a legal term. It is derived from the Latin word certiorare, which means "to be fully informed." As we mentioned above, the U.S. Supreme Court uses certiorari to decide which cases it hears. Approximately how many petitions requesting a writ of certiorari does the Court receive each year?
- 100
- 1,000
- 10,000
- 100,000
Choose an answer to find out! |
Confirmations
The United States Senate did not confirm any additional nominees since our last issue.
The U.S. Senate has now confirmed 84 federal judges—53 district court judges, 29 appeals court judges, and two Supreme Court justices—nominated by President Donald Trump (R).
New nominations
President Trump announced one new nomination since our last issue: Neomi Rao, to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
He has announced 178 nominations since taking office on January 20, 2017.
Vacancies
The federal judiciary currently has 136 vacancies. Of those 136 vacancies, 69 have no nominee. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and other outlets, an additional 22 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term. There are 69 pending nominations to seats tracked by Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count.
Committee action
The Senate Judiciary Committee did not report any new nominees out of committee since our last issue.
Love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count, published on the last Wednesday of every month, monitors all 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 has got you covered with continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees.
Or, if you prefer, we maintain a list of individuals President Trump has nominated. |
Every issue, we at Ballotpedia highlight a federal court you should know more about. Right now, we’re taking a closer look at the United States courts of appeals, or circuit courts. They are the intermediate appellate courts of the U.S. federal courts. There are 13 U.S. courts of appeals.
In this edition, we're filling up on Cincinnati chili while visiting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over the nine United States district courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.
The Sixth Circuit has 16 authorized judgeships. Eleven of the court's 16 current judges were appointed by Republican presidents. There are no vacancies.
Since 2007, SCOTUS reversed 42 decisions of 52 cases from the Sixth Circuit, a rate of 88.1 percent—the highest reversal rate of all the circuits. |
Join us December 3 for another edition of Bold Justice, where we'll preview the cases being argued and provide updates on other judicial news. |
|
|
