Daily Brew: Which lower court has SCOTUS reversed most often

July 13, 2018

New analysis on the cases overturned by the Supreme Court + Will D.C. repeal the minimum wage for tipped employees initiative that passed?   Welcome to the Friday July 13 Brew. Here’s what's in store for you as you sip your morning Brew: New analysis on the cases overturned by the Supreme Court, diving into which court has the highest rate of reversal. Will D.C. repeal the minimum wage for tipped employees initiative that passed? Trump signs EO on administrative law judges SCOTUS overturn rate for 2017 is on par with average for past decade The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) reversed lower court decisions in 52 of the 74 opinions it issued in the October 2017 term.It This term's reversal rate — 70.3 percent — was close to the average since 2007 (70.1 percent). The court affirmed 19 opinions, and the remaining three were original jurisdiction.   Fifteen of the October 2017 term cases originated in the Ninth Circuit, twice as many as from any other circuit. The Ninth Circuit also had 12 cases reversed, more than any other lower court in the term, and the most since 2012.   Since 2007, 596 of 850 cases have been reversed by the Supreme Court. The Sixth Court of Appeals had the highest percentage of cases reversed at 88 percent (52 of 59 cases).   The Ninth Circuit has gained a reputation as one of the most-reversed circuits, even drawing attention from President Donald Trump (R) in an April 2017 tweet. The Ninth Circuit had the highest number of cases reversed — 126 cases — and the highest number of cases taken up by the court.   Since 2007, its 75.5 percent is fourth highest behind the Sixth Circuit (88.1 percent), Eighth Circuit (76.3 percent), and Eleventh Circuit (75.9 percent). The First Circuit has the lowest rate of reversed decisions at 43.5 percent.   The Supreme Court hears and reaches decisions in 70 to 90 cases each year. There are two major decisions SCOTUS can make—affirm a lower court's ruling or reverse it. The vast majority of SCOTUS cases originate in a lower court—either one of the 13 appeals circuits, state-level courts, and U.S. district courts. Original jurisdiction cases cannot be considered affirmed or reversed since SCOTUS is the first and only court that rules in the case.   Find out how your appeals court faired         Washington D.C. council to decide on repeal of minimum wage increase for tipped employees Seven members of the 13-member D.C. city council introduced a bill on Tuesday designed to repeal Initiative 77, the minimum wage increase for tipped workers that was approved by voters on June 19. The citizen initiative passed with over 55 percent approval and requires employers to pay tipped workers the standard minimum wage for non-tipped employees by 2026. The council will take action on the introduced repeal legislation after a recess that ends in mid-September. Learn more→ Trump issues executive order changing ALJ hiring process President Trump issued an executive order, titled "Excepting Administrative Law Judges from the Competitive Service,” removing administrative law judges (ALJs) from the hiring requirements of the competitive civil service and reclassifying ALJs subject to the hiring procedures of the excepted service.  The reclassification allows agency heads to directly appoint ALJs, and removes ALJs from the cause removal protections of the competitive civil service, allowing them to be fired at-will as members of the excepted service. It was issued in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC, which held that ALJs are officers of the United States who must be appointed by the president, the courts, or agency heads rather than hired by agency staff. Prior to the executive order, ALJs were required to undergo a recruitment and examination process administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as part of the competitive civil service. ALJs, in the context of federal administrative law, are officials with the authority to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, review findings, and administer rulings. The Administrative Procedure Act requires that administrative law judges preside over hearings during formal adjudication proceedings, but they may also preside over hearings during informal adjudication. Adjudication proceedings include agency determinations outside of the rulemaking process that aim to resolve disputes between either agencies and private parties or between two private parties. Join our free webinar to learn more→ Follow on Twitter   Friend on Facebook Copyright © %%current_year_YYYY%%, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: %%account_address%% Decide which emails you want from Ballotpedia. Unsubscribe or update subscription preferences.