Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

Bold Justice: November 6, 2017

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bold Justice: You’re hired!

Making good on a pledge he made on October 27 in National Review, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) held confirmation votes on five of President Trump’s judicial nominees last week. Each of the nominees was commissioned to a life-term appointment under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Four of the nominees were confirmed to seats on the United States courts of appeal. The federal appeals courts often prove as fertile ground from which to harvest nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Eight of the nine current justices of the Supreme Court were federal appeals court judges before becoming Supreme Court justices, as were the two justices to most recently leave the court: Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens. During his presidential election campaign, President Donald Trump (R) released a list of 21 names from which he would select nominees to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. That list has winnowed to 20 names with the April 2017 confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Two of the names on that list, Joan Larsen and Allison Eid, were among the five confirmed nominees this week. So far, six names on that list have been nominated to new judicial positions:

Five judicial confirmations, four Supreme Court arguments held over three days, and two new judicial nominations made for one exciting week in the federal judiciary! Pull up a chair and enjoy our latest blend of Bold Justice!

We #SCOTUS, so you don’t have to

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments during the first week of its two-week November argument sitting. The court heard arguments in four cases:

  • On Monday, the court heard arguments in Ayestas v. Davis, an appeal of a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In July of 1997, Carlos Manuel Ayestas received a capital sentence for a murder conviction. Over a period of over ten years, Ayestas sought appellate relief of his sentence in Texas state courts. During that period, Ayestas' appellate attorneys did not raise a claim that Ayestas' trial counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to introduce certain evidence that could have mitigated Ayestas' capital sentence, including evidence that Ayestas had suffered multiple head injuries related to automobile and motorcycle accidents, that he began drinking alcohol in his teenage years, and that he had developed a weekly cocaine habit prior to the murder. Ayestas exhausted his state appeals in 2008 without receiving a reduction in his sentence. In 2009, during his federal appeals, Ayestas' counsel tried to introduce the mitigating evidence for an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, but a federal court held that the claim was procedurally defaulted because it wasn't raised during Ayestas' state appeals. But a subsequent and unrelated U.S. Supreme Court decision later permitted a procedurally defaulted claim to be introduced in federal courts under certain circumstances. Based on this ruling and in an effort to prepare his appeal to introduce the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in federal court, Ayestas filed for assistance under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. §3599(f), to investigate his claim. The assistance Ayestas sought can be awarded based on a judicial determination that the assistance was "reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant." Both a federal district court and a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit denied the assistance, holding that the existing evidence did not support the ineffective assistance claim and that Ayestas had not demonstrated a substantial need for the assistance in order to pursue the claim. Ayestas argued that requiring him to demonstrate a substantial need in order to obtain the assistance presented what he called a "logical circularity," because he could not show a substantial need for the assistance to develop his claim without first obtaining the assistance in order to develop his claim.
  • The court also heard arguments Monday in Wilson v. Sellers, an appeal of a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. After receiving a capital sentence in Georgia, Marion Wilson Jr. appealed his sentence, arguing that his attorney failed to introduce evidence that might have reduced his sentence. In a written opinion, a Georgia superior court denied his petition. That denial was upheld by the Georgia Supreme Court in a one-word summary disposition: "Denied." Wilson then brought his appeal in federal court. A federal district court and a panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Wilson's claim based on the Georgia Supreme Court's summary disposition, holding that Wilson was required to show a reasonable basis to overrule the Georgia Supreme Court and that he had not done so. Wilson argued that the federal courts were required to look through the state supreme court's summary disposition to the reasoning of the Georgia superior court's decision. The full Eleventh Circuit, rehearing the case, rejected Wilson's argument by a 6-5 vote. Four other federal circuits, however, assert that a court must look through a summary disposition to the last reasoned opinion issued by a state court in order to review federal habeas petitions.
  • On Tuesday, the court heard arguments in one case: U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, which comes on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Village at Lakeridge filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2011. There were only two creditors with legitimate claims to residual assets from Lakeridge's bankruptcy, U.S. Bank and MBP Equity Partners, and these were the only entities with voting rights on Lakeridge's proposed bankruptcy reorganization plan. U.S. Bank had a secured claim whereas MBP Partners had an unsecured claim. Dr. Robert Rabkin acquired MBP Equity Partners' unsecured claim through a personal friend who was also a MBP board member. U.S. Bank tried to purchase Rabkin's claim and, when the offer lapsed, sought to disallow Rabkin's claim by alleging that he was an insider. Under federal law, insiders, both statutory and non-statutory, are prevented from voting on a company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan. A bankruptcy court held that Rabkin was an insider, but a bankruptcy appellate panel reversed that holding. A divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision, with a majority finding no clear error in the bankruptcy panel's decision. The Ninth Circuit panel's minority, however, argued that the determination of whether or not Rabkin was an insider was subject to de novo review by the court, not a review for clear error. De novo is Latin for new, and here refers to when an appellate court decides a legal question without consideration of a lower court's determination on that same question. The Third, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have used the de novo standard. So, the question for the U.S. Supreme Court is: which standard for appellate review is correct in these cases: clear error or de novo?
  • On Wednesday, the court heard arguments in Artis v. District of Columbia. The case comes to the U.S. Supreme Court on an appeal of a judgment of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is a court that hears appeals of local court decisions in the District of Columbia. After her termination by the District of Columbia as a temporary health inspector, Stephanie Artis filed a civil lawsuit in 2011 in federal district court alleging that her termination violated federal and District laws. While waiting for the federal court to rule on her claims, a three-year statute of limitations period to file claims against the District in D.C. local courts expired. In 2014, the federal court held that it lacked jurisdiction over some of Artis' allegations that the District violated D.C. law. 59 days after that decision, Artis refiled her claims in a D.C. local court. The District moved to dismiss Artis' lawsuit, arguing that she exceeded a 30-day grace period under 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) to refile her claims once the federal court determined it lacked jurisdiction. Artis argued that 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) suspended the statute of limitations and that she had over two years to refile her claims in the D.C. court. Both a local judge and a D.C. appeals court panel sided with the District.

This week, the court is scheduled to hear arguments in two cases next week:

  • On Monday, the court will hear arguments in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, an appeal of a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In bankruptcy cases, a bankruptcy trustee is appointed to distribute any residual assets from a bankrupt entity to any of the bankrupt entity's creditors having a legitimate claim. Bankruptcy trustees can undo previously completed transactions in order to facilitate payments to creditors, but the federal bankruptcy code prevents a trustee from doing so in certain circumstances. This protection is known as the safe harbor provision in the bankruptcy code. The safe harbor provision generally protects legitimate transactions made by, made to, or for the benefit of financial institutions. This case raises a question as to whether the safe harbor provision also protects transactions where the financial institution merely served as a conduit, but was not a beneficiary. In this case, the Seventh Circuit held that the safe harbor provision did not extend to transactions in which a financial institution merely served as a conduit, agreeing with a prior holding of the Eleventh Circuit. Five other federal circuit courts, however, have read the safe harbor provision to include transactions in which financial institutions serve as conduits only.
  • On Tuesday, the court will hear arguments in Patchak v. Zinke, an appeal of a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. James Marino, who writes for the legal blog Law360, called this case “probably one of the more important cases ... since Marbury v. Madison defined the parameters of the three branches of our government over 210 years ago.” It is a fascinating case to be sure. In 2001, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a tract of land known as the Bradley Property to be placed in trust. The land is located near Wayland Township, Michigan. The Tribe sought to use the land to build and to operate a gaming and entertainment facility. David Patchak, the petitioner, filed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Department of the Interior lacked the authority to place the land in trust. The U.S. Supreme Court later held that Patchak had standing to bring the lawsuit in court. Subsequent to that decision, Congress passed, and President Barack Obama (D) signed, the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which required that any legal action related to the Bradley Property be promptly dismissed in federal court. What’s interesting about the law is that Patchak's lawsuit was the only legal action affected by the legislation and the law was introduced by Michigan senator Debbie Stabenow (D). Patchak appealed, arguing that Congress violated constitutional provisions for separation of powers in altering federal courts' jurisdiction by not providing a new legal standard for courts to apply, in violation of Article III. A federal district court and a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit rejected Patchak's claims. Put another way: a senator introduced a piece of legislation, which Congress approved and the president signed, that had the sole effect of dismissing one of her constituent’s lawsuits. No word yet on whether Patchak intends to vote for Stabenow in 2018.

SCOTUS trivia

Well, we’ve kind of given away the question above, but recall that eight of the nine current justices were federal appeals court judges prior to becoming Supreme Court justices.

Your question: which current justice was not a federal appeals court judge prior to becoming a Supreme Court justice?

Bonus points will be awarded if you can name the most recent Supreme Court justice to leave the court who was also not a federal appeals court judge prior to becoming a justice.

Judicial motions

This week, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm five of President Trump’s nominees to life-term appointments in the federal judiciary.

Here was the week that was:

Nerdy fact with which to wow your friends

Each of the four confirmed nominees to the U.S. courts of appeal clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Both Barrett and Larsen clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, Eid clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, and Bibas clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Nominations

President Trump announced two new judicial nominations this week. The first, announced on October 30, was that of Carmen Guerricagoitia McLean to serve as an associate judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Because Washington, D.C., is a federal territory under the U.S. Constitution, nominations to judicial positions to Washington, D.C. courts are made by the president. Those nominations are then subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The superior court is a trial court for violations of D.C. ordinances, meaning that it is a federal court in terms of its location, but is very much a local court in terms of its jurisdiction.

McLean’s is the fourth nomination that Trump has submitted to fill a vacancy on this court, joining the nominations of Jonathan Pittman, Deborah Israel, and Rainey Ransom Brandt. Israel, Brandt, and McLean were also nominated to the court by President Barack Obama in 2016. Recommendations on nominations to the court are presented to the president by the Judicial Nominating Commission of the District of Columbia; the president may then choose to select from one of the recommended nominees or select someone else entirely. Confirmation hearings on these nominees are held before the U.S. Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. If confirmed by the Senate, judges on the superior court are commissioned to 15-year terms of service.

The second of President Trump’s judicial nominations, submitted on November 2, was that of James R. Sweeney II to serve as a district judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. As a judicial appointment authorized under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Sweeney’s nomination will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. If confirmed, Sweeney would be commissioned to serve a life term on the court.

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee held over five judicial nominations last week. Under a committee rule, any agenda item on the agenda for the first time can be held over until the next committee meeting or one week, whichever is longer. These nominees will be up for consideration and a committee vote this week. If a majority of the 20-member committee votes to report the nominations, those nominees will be placed on the Senate’s executive calendar for a potential final vote on confirmation. There are 11 Republicans and nine Democrats on the committee. The nominees we expect to have committee votes this week are:

  • Greg Katsas, nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
  • Jeffrey Uhlman Beaverstock, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
  • Emily Coody Marks, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
  • Brett Talley, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
  • Holly Lou Teeter, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

The Senate Judiciary Committee also held confirmation hearings on four Article III judicial nominees last week:

  • L. Steven Grasz, nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • Terry Doughty, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
  • Terry Moorer, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
  • Mark Norris, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

Grasz’s nomination received some attention this week as the American Bar Association’s (ABA) standing committee on the federal judiciary gave Grasz a unanimous rating of Not Qualified for the nomination. The ABA committee issues ratings on every Article III and Article IV judicial nominee. The ABA later released a statement regarding the Grasz nomination explaining the process of ABA evaluations of federal judicial nominees. Grasz’s home state senator, Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), took to the Senate floor to denounce the ABA’s rating.

The last time a nominee received a unanimous Not Qualified rating from the ABA was in 2006, when President George W. Bush nominated Michael Brunson Wallace to the Fifth Circuit. That nomination was later withdrawn. A second nominee of President Trump’s, Charles Goodwin, also received a rating of Not Qualified by the ABA Committee, though Goodwin’s rating was not one on which the ABA committee unanimously agreed. It remains to be seen whether Grasz will be reported by the Judiciary Committee or confirmed by the full Senate.

Current judicial vacancies

  • 140 judicial vacancies in life-term, Article III judicial positions
  • 46 pending nominations to life-term, Article III judicial positions
  • 16 future vacancies to life-term, Article III judicial positions

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.

Riding circuit

Federal circuit courts are where over 99% of federal cases end. Here’s a sampling of what caught our eye in the circuit courts last week.

  • Malkan v. Matua (Second Circuit): A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit upheld a federal district court’s grant of summary judgment in this case. When Matua, a former dean of the State University of New York at Buffalo Law School, did not extend Malkan’s term appointment as a clinical law professor under the standard faculty recommendation process, Malkan filed a suit alleging a violation of his 14th Amendment rights to due process. The district court, in awarding summary judgment to Matua, held that due process could only be violated if a protected privacy interest was at issue. In affirming the judgment, the circuit panel held that SUNY’s regulations capping term appointments at three years superseded any of the authorities cited by Malkan in his appeal, noting that “mutual understandings and customs could not create a property interest for purposes of due process when they are contrary to the express provisions of regulations and statutes” (citing Baden v. Koch).
  • In re Trump (Sixth Circuit): A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit agreed to consider a petition filed on behalf of President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Trump incited violence against protestors at a Kentucky campaign rally in 2016. The case was brought by three protesters who alleged that Trump’s statement “Get ‘em out of here!” lead to violence against the protesters. Trump filed a motion to dismiss the case, but a federal district court denied the motion, holding that the protesters’ complaint presented a plausible claim for incitement to violence under Kentucky law. In the circuit panel’s opinion, the court held that “while the president does not enjoy immunity under the circumstances presented here, an interlocutory appeal is hardly imprudent given the exceptional nature of this case. ... we are convinced that a panel of this court should ensure that the Kentucky claim rests on a solid footing before permitting litigation to continue. It may, or it may not.”
  • Federal National Mortgage Association et al. v. City of Chicago et al. (Seventh Circuit): In 2013, the Seventh Circuit held that state and local taxing authorities in Illinois could not levy real estate transfer taxes against the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), or the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) because these entities were exempt from all taxes except real property taxes. The question in this case was whether those same state and local taxing authorities could levy real estate transfer taxes on purchases made by private buyers of real estate held by the federal agencies. A federal district court held that because the imposition of a transfer tax impacted the price the federal agencies could charge for a property, the tax was prohibited. A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed that decision, holding that nothing in the plain language of the exemptions indicated that the clear and manifest purpose of Congress was to exempt any private parties who purchased from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHFA from taxes.
  • Zion v. County of Orange, California, et al. (Ninth Circuit): A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit revived a case against an Orange County police officer, Michael Higgins, for excessive force. Although the Ninth Circuit held that Higgins had cause to shoot Connor Zion upon witnessing Zion stab a fellow officer, the panel held that Higgins’ subsequent actions both of shooting Zion nine times at close range after Zion had dropped to the ground and of stomping Zion in the head could support a jury finding of excessive force and that “a reasonable jury could also conclude that Higgins was acting out of anger or emotion rather than any legitimate law enforcement purpose.” Based on this judgment, litigation against Higgins and the county could proceed.
  • Rochelle Garza, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Eric D. Hargan et al. (D.C. Circuit): We’ve brought you some information about this case in an earlier version of Bold Justice. Just to remind, the case began on October 18, 2017, when Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order requiring the government to make or permit accommodations for an unaccompanied minor, Jane Doe, to receive counseling and undergo an abortion procedure on or before October 21, 2017. Jane Doe, an undocumented immigrant minor, was in U.S. custody at the time of the order. The government argued that "undocumented minors do not have a constitutional right to an elective abortion in federal custody, unless it is a medical emergency, and also said immigrants here illegally have 'minimal' protections in this country." Judge Chutkan rejected that position and ordered the government to make or permit accommodations for Jane Doe to terminate her pregnancy. The judge further stated that failure to comply with her order could lead to the government being held in contempt of court. The government appealed Judge Chutkan's decision to the D.C. Circuit. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit issued a judicial stay of a portion of Judge Chutkan's order. Arguments before the D.C. Circuit were held on October 20, 2017. Later that day, the circuit court vacated a portion of Judge Chutkan’s stay and ordered Judge Chutkan to give the Department of Health and Human Services until the end of October to find Jane Doe a sponsor and to release Jane Doe to the sponsor. On October 24, 2017, the circuit panel's decision was vacated by an order of the full D.C. Circuit sitting en banc. The circuit court order reinstated Judge Chutkan's order in the case. The circuit vote divided by the party of the nominating president. Six judges appointed by Democratic presidents voted to reinstate Judge Chutkan's order and three judges appointed by Republican presidents voted to maintain the circuit panel's decision to halt Judge Chutkan's order. Judge Cornelia T. L. Pillard, an Obama appointee, did not participate in the court's decision. Last week, the government filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s opinion. A decision on whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the case is expected soon given the status of the teen’s pregnancy. The case is before the U.S. Supreme Court as Hargan v. Garza.

Legal briefs

  • Judge Deborah Robinson, a federal magistrate judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presided as Paul Manafort, the one-time campaign manager for President Donald Trump (R) and Manafort's associate, Rick Gates, entered pleas of not guilty in response to an indictment on 12 charges related to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Upon entry of the plea, the defendants were held over for trial in a federal district court. Judge Amy Berman Jackson will preside over the trial.
  • Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of a proposed ban on transgender individuals from enlisting or serving in the armed forces. The order was in reference to a presidential memorandum issued on August 25, 2017, in which President Donald Trump (R) indefinitely extended a prohibition against transgender individuals from entering the military and required the military to authorize the discharge of current transgender service members by March 23, 2018. Several unidentified prospective and current servicemembers filed a motion to prevent implementation of the memorandum, arguing that the memorandum violated the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. The administration moved to dismiss, arguing that, because the memorandum had not effected a change in policy and that the policy was still under review, the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene. Holding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their Fifth Amendment claims, Judge Kollar-Kotelly rejected the government's motion to dismiss the case. Judge Kollar-Kotelly, in issuing the injunction, held that "a number of factors—including the sheer breadth of the exclusion ordered by the directives, the unusual circumstances surrounding the President’s announcement of them, the fact that the reasons given for them do not appear to be supported by any facts, and the recent rejection of those reasons by the military itself—strongly suggest that Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim is meritorious." Judge Kollar-Kotelly's order had the effect of reverting to the policy in existence prior to the issuance of the August 2017 memorandum.
  • Judge William Walls of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion for a mistrial in the bribery suit against U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and a co-defendant, Dr. Salomon Melgen. In their motion, the defendants argued that Judge Walls' "evidentiary rulings and comments throughout this trial evince a cumulative abuse of discretion that has deprived Defendants of their Fifth and Sixth Amendments rights to a fair trial, to an adequate defense, and to confront the witnesses against them." The motion was seen as a means of preparing grounds for an appeal should Menendez and Melgen be convicted. Closing arguments were held late last week. The government presented closing arguments last week. Defense counsel will begin closing arguments on Monday.
  • Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York reinstated the National Football League's (NFL) six-game suspension of Dallas Cowboys' running back Ezekiel Elliott after the judge dissolved a temporary restraining order issued on October 17, 2017, by Judge Paul Crotty preventing enforcement of the suspension and denied a motion filed by the National Football League Players' Association (NFLPA) to vacate the NFL's decision. In her opinion, Failla wrote that the NFLPA failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of the case, failed to show that Elliott would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and that the public interest favored an injunction. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of Judge Failla’s decision on Friday and a three-judge panel of the court will hear arguments on whether to void or uphold Elliott’s suspension later this week.

A judge you oughta know

  • Every week, we at Ballotpedia want to highlight a federal judge. Clerking for a U.S. Supreme Court justice is a tremendous achievement. Clerking for two justices is a very rare feat. What if we told you there’s a federal appeals court judge that has clerked for three?!?! Meet Judge Timothy Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a judge you oughta know.

SCOTUS trivia answer

The answer to our SCOTUS trivia question is Justice Elena Kagan. Though she never served as a federal judge, Kagan did serve as U.S. solicitor general prior to her elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court, a position which scholar Lincoln Caplan referred to as the “tenth justice” in his work, The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law.

Bonus question: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the most recent justice to leave the Supreme Court who did not serve as a federal appeals court judge prior to her elevation to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor was a judge on the Arizona Court of Appeals when President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court. Since leaving the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006, Justice O’Connor has occasionally served on circuit panels of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Looking ahead

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

  • We expect the U.S. Supreme Court to issue orders from this week’s Thursday conference on Monday of next week. The court is closed on Friday in observance of Veterans’ Day. To all those who serve or have served and their families, thank you!
  • We expect the Senate Judiciary Committee to vote on whether to report judicial nominations to the full Senate for final confirmation on Thursday.
  • We expect federal courts to be closed on Friday due to the Veterans’ Day holiday.

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:_November_6,_2017&oldid=8438517"