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

The Federal Tap: Three U.S. House members say they won’t seek re-election

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

December 7, 2019Issue No. 185

The Tap Graphic-750x191px.png

Week in review
On tap next week

THE WEEK IN REVIEW

Here's what happened in Federal politics last week.

Saturday, November 30

Steyer leads Democratic presidential candidates in Ballotpedia pageviews for the first time in 2019

  • Tom Steyer's campaign page on Ballotpedia received 4,081 views for the week of November 24-30. Steyer's pageview figure represents 11.8% of the pageviews for the week. Pete Buttigieg had 9.9% of the pageviews for the week, followed by Andrew Yang with 8.6%. The previous week, Buttigieg had the most pageviews, followed by Tulsi Gabbard, then Steyer. This is Tom Steyer's first week this year leading in pageviews.
  • Each week, we report the number of pageviews received by 2020 presidential campaigns on Ballotpedia. These numbers show which candidates are getting our readers' attention.
  • Every Democratic candidate other than Steyer had fewer pageviews last week than the week before. Steyer's pageviews increased by 22% while all other Democrats had a decrease between 11% and 37%.
  • Andrew Yang remains the leader in overall pageviews this year with 147,622. He is followed by Pete Buttigieg with 141,510 and Joe Biden with 131,910.

Monday, December 2

North Carolina court allows revised congressional map, candidate filing for U.S. House districts underway

  • On Dec. 2, a three-judge panel of North Carolina's state superior court ruled unanimously that U.S. House elections in 2020 will take place under a remedial map adopted last month by state lawmakers. The court had earlier ruled that the original map constituted a partisan gerrymander in violation of state law. The court also ordered that the candidate filing period open immediately, having previously delayed the filing period pending consideration of the remedial map and the objections to it. The maps' opponents announced later that day that they would not appeal the decision.
    • On Oct. 28, the court enjoined further application of the previous U.S. House map, which was adopted by lawmakers in 2016. In its order, the court wrote, "The loss to Plaintiffs' fundamental rights guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution will undoubtedly be irreparable if congressional elections are allowed to proceed under the 2016 congressional districts." The court did not issue a full decision on the merits, stating that "disruptions to the election process need not occur, nor may an expedited schedule for summary judgment or trial even be needed, should the General Assembly, on its own initiative, act immediately and with all due haste to enact new congressional districts." The same three-judge panel, comprising Judges Paul C. Ridgeway, Joseph N. Crosswhite, and Alma L. Hinton, struck down the state's legislative district plan on similar grounds on September 3, 2019.
    • On November 14, the state House approved the remedial map (HB1029) by a vote of 55-46. The vote split along party lines, with all Republicans voting in favor of the bill and all Democrats voting against it. The state Senate approved the bill on November 15, 2019, by a vote of 24-17, also along party lines.
    • In 2020, all 13 of North Carolina's seats in the U.S. House will be up for election. Heading into 2020, Republicans hold 10 of those seats, and Democrats hold the remaining three. In the wake of the court's Dec. 2 order confirming the implementation of the remedial map in 2020, Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato's Crystal Ball, said via Twitter, "Not going to officially make NC House ratings changes until we know the new map is final, but here's what's tentatively coming: NC-2: Likely R to Safe D; NC-6: Safe R to Safe D; NC-8: Safe R to Likely R; NC-13: Likely R to Safe R. Ratings changes suggest a two-seat D net gain."

Supreme Court hears cases on the Second Amendment, copyright law, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

  • The U.S. Supreme Court heard six cases this week. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current term.
  • December 2
A group of New York City residents challenged New York City's rule that an individual with a premises license for a handgun is only allowed to take the handgun out of his or her home to go to a shooting range within the city limits. The residents argued that the rule violated their Second Amendment right, the dormant Commerce Clause, the First Amendment right of expressive association, and the fundamental right to travel.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the residents' argument. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld the district court's ruling. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted the case on January 22, 2019. New York City repealed the gun rule in July 2019.
The issue: Whether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
  • Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. concerns copyright law. In 2015, the Georgia Code Revision Commission sued the nonprofit organization Public.Resource.Org (PRO) for copyright infringement. The Commission argued that PRO could not distribute copies of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). PRO disagreed, arguing the OCGA was in the public domain. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in favor of the Commission and barred PRO from distributing the OCGA. On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and vacated in part the district court's ruling, concluding the state of Georgia had no valid copyright.
The State of Georgia appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its petition, the state said the 11th Circuit showed "considerable confusion regarding the government edicts doctrine." The government edicts doctrine originated in the 1800s with three U.S. Supreme Court cases that held judicial opinions are not copyrightable. Lower courts later expanded the doctrine to apply to state law.
The issue: Whether the government edicts doctrine applies to the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
  • December 3
  • In Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, United Western Bank, a subsidiary of Colorado corporation United Western Bancorp, Inc. (UWBI), closed in 2011 after suffering $35.4 million in losses. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as United Western Bank's receiver. An agency or court appoints a receiver as an alternative to filing for bankruptcy. The receiver manages the assets of a bankrupt business.
Also in 2011, the parent company, UWBI, filed a tax refund request of $4.8 million to recover a portion of United Western Bank's 2008 taxes. In 2012, UWBI filed for bankruptcy. Both the FDIC and UWBI argued in bankruptcy court that the tax refund belonged to them. The bankruptcy court ruled the refund belonged to UWBI.
On appeal, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado reversed the bankruptcy court's decision. Simon Rodriguez, the Chapter 7 trustee for UWBI's bankruptcy estate, appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's ruling and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court.
Rodriguez petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 10th Circuit's decision, arguing circuit courts were divided on the question of tax refund ownership.
The issue: Whether courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated group based on the federal common law Bob Richards rule, as three Circuits hold, or based on the law of the relevant State, as four Circuits hold.
The Bob Richards rule came from a 9th Circuit decision in In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., Inc. in 1973. According to the petition Rodriguez submitted to SCOTUS, the rule "presumes that a tax refund belongs to the subsidiary that caused the underlying loss unless the parties have entered into a tax agreement clearly assigning the refund to the parent."
  • In Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, a group of landowners located within the bounds of the Anaconda Smelter superfund site sued the Atlantic Richfield Co. (ARCO) for common law trespass, nuisance, and strict liability and sought restoration damages. ARCO argued the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) preempted the landowners' claims.
The state district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run out. On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case. On remand, the district court denied ARCO's motions. ARCO appealed again, and the state supreme court affirmed the district court's denial and remanded the case.
The issue: (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies is a "challenge" to EPA's cleanup jurisdictionally barred by § 113 of CERCLA.
(2) Whether a landowner at a superfund site is a "potentially responsible party" that must seek EPA's approval under CERCLA § 122(e)(6) before engaging in remedial action, even if EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup.
(3) Whether CERCLA preempts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.
  • December 4
Christopher Sulyma worked at Intel from 2010 to 2012, where he participated in retirement accounts an Intel investment committee managed. In 2015, Sulyma sued Intel, claiming the committee mismanaged his retirement accounts and violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Intel, who argued Sulyma's claims were untimely. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and remanded the case.
The issue: Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act establishes a three-year limitations period from "the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation." Can a plaintiff sue a defendant if the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff more than three years before the plaintiff filed the suit?
  • In Banister v. Davis, a jury convicted Gregory Banister of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in 2004. After several appeals, Banister filed a petition under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to revisit an earlier judgment. The district court denied the petition.
On appeal, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also denied Banister's petition for a certificate of appealability, which would have allowed another court to hear an argument that a habeas corpus appeal was wrongfully denied. The 5th Circuit ruled the petition was untimely based on Gonzalez v. Crosby. In that 2005 Supreme Court case, the court considered whether Gonzalez' Rule 60(b) petition counted as a second writ of habeas corpus. The court ruled that it did not constitute a second habeas petition.
Banister appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that there was a circuit split on extending the Gonzalez decision to include Rule 59(e) motions. Banister's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court described the purpose of Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure as "to allow the district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings." Click here for more information on Rule 59(e).
The issue: Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005).

Brouillette confirmed as energy secretary

  • The U.S. Senate confirmed deputy energy secretary Dan Brouillette as secretary of energy by a 70-15 vote. Trump nominated Brouillette on November 7. He succeeds Rick Perry, who was confirmed to the position in March 2017.
  • Brouillette earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland, College Park. He served in the U.S. Army and then was the Senior Vice President of R. Duffy Wall & Associates. Brouillette served as chief of staff under Rep. Billy Tauzin and was also staff director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He served as a vice president at Ford Motor Company.
  • There were 25 days between Brouillette’s nomination and confirmation. This was below the average of 37 days between nomination and confirmation for Cabinet and Cabinet-rank officials in Donald Trump’s presidential administration.

Illinois congressional candidate filing period ends

  • The candidate filing deadline for Illinois established party candidates was December 2, 2019. The primary is scheduled for March 17, 2020, and the general election is November 3, 2020. Offices on the ballot in 2020 include the U.S. Senate seat currently held by Sen. Dick Durbin (D) and all 18 U.S. House districts.
  • The Illinois filing deadline was the third statewide filing deadline for the 2020 general elections. It was preceded by Alabama on November 8 and by Arkansas on November 12.

Tuesday, December 3

Harris, Bullock, Sestak end their campaigns for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination

  • Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) suspended her presidential campaign, saying she lacked the financial resources to continue.
  • Harris is the third Democratic candidate to leave the presidential race this week. Former Rep. Joe Sestak (Pa.) and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock withdrew on Sunday and Monday, respectively.
  • Fifteen Democratic presidential candidates remain in the race. At this point in the 2016 presidential election cycle, there were 14 Republican candidates still running.

Rep. Hunter (R-Calif.) pleads guilty to misuse of campaign funds

  • On December 3, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) pleaded guilty to using campaign funds for personal expenses. He announced Dec. 6 that he will resign from the House after the holidays.
  • In August 2018, Hunter and his wife and former campaign manager, Margaret, were indicted on federal charges of wire fraud, falsifying records, campaign finance violations, and conspiracy. The indictment alleged that Hunter and his wife used $250,000 in campaign funds for personal use, including vacations, school tuition, and entertainment.
  • Hunter will serve jail time for the violations and is scheduled for sentencing on March 17, 2020.

Wednesday, December 4

Three U.S House members announce they’re not running for re-election in 2020

  • On December 4, Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.) announced that he would not seek re-election to Congress in 2020. He did not give a reason for his retirement, but in a statement said he planned on writing at least two books. Heck was first elected to the U.S. House in 2012 representing Washington's 10th Congressional District. He won re-election in 2018 by 23 percentage points.
  • On December 5, Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) announced that he would not seek re-election in 2020. In a statement, Graves cited a desire to spend more time with his family as a reason for the retirement. Graves was first elected to represent Georgia's 14th Congressional District in June 2010. He won re-election in 2018 by 53 percentage points.
  • On December 6, Rep. George Holding (R-N.C.) announced that he would not seek re-election in 2020. Holding cited the redrawn congressional districts in the state as one of the reasons he was retiring. Holding was first elected to represent North Carolina's 2nd Congressional District in 2012. He won re-election in 2018 by 5.5 percentage points. In response to the announcement, The Cook Political Report rated the district as a guaranteed Democratic pickup.
  • These retirements bring the total number of U.S. House retirements in the 2020 election cycle to nine Democrats and 22 Republicans. In the 2018 election cycle, 52 members of the U.S. House—18 Democrats and 34 Republicans—did not seek re-election.
  • Currently, Democrats hold a 233-197 majority in the U.S. House with one independent member of the chamber. In November 2020, all 435 seats will be up for election. Ballotpedia has identified 72 U.S. House races as general election battlegrounds. Of the 72 seats, 42 are held by Democrats and 30 are held by Republicans heading into the election.

Georgia Gov. Kemp (R) announces he’ll appoint Loeffler to succeed Sen. Isakson (R) Dec. 31

  • Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) announced Wednesday that he would appoint businesswoman Kelly Loeffler (R) to succeed Sen. Johnny Isakson (R). Isakson will retire for health reasons effective December 31.
  • Loeffler has two decades of experience in financial services. She most recently served as chief executive officer of cryptocurrency exchange operator Bakkt. Loeffler earlier worked for Bakkt parent company Intercontinental Exchange for 16 years, where she headed communications and marketing efforts. She is co-owner of the Atlanta Dream WNBA team. Loeffler has not previously held elected office.
  • A special election for the remainder of Isakson's term will take place on November 3, 2020. No primary will be held; instead, all candidates running for the seat will appear on the November ballot. If no candidate wins a majority of votes cast, the top two finishers will advance to a runoff on January 5, 2021. The winner of that election will serve the remainder of Isakson's term, which runs through January 2023.
  • Georgia's other U.S. Senate seat, held by David Perdue (R), is up for regular election this year. A primary will be held on May 19, 2020, with a primary runoff on July 21. Perdue, who was first elected in 2014, has said that he will seek re-election in 2020. The last time candidates of different parties won election to the U.S. Senate from the same state in the same year was 1966.
  • Isakson was first elected to the U.S. House in 1999 and the U.S. Senate in 2004. He was last re-elected in 2016, defeating Jim Barksdale (D) by a margin of 13.8 percentage points. Isakson will be the first senator to leave office early during the 116th Congress. Four other senators—including three Republicans and one Democrat—have announced that they do not intend to seek re-election.

Thursday, December 5

Pelosi announces House will draft articles of impeachment against Trump

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that the House of Representatives will draft articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump (R).
  • Pelosi said in a statement, “The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security by withholding military aid and crucial Oval Office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival.”
  • Trump responded on Twitter, “This will mean that the beyond important and seldom used act of Impeachment will be used routinely to attack future Presidents. That is not what our Founders had in mind. The good thing is that the Republicans have NEVER been more united. We will win!”
  • Earlier in the week, the House Intelligence Committee adopted a committee report on Trump's alleged misconduct and obstruction. Republicans also released a minority report on the hearings and evidence.

Senate confirms eight federal court judges

  • The U.S. Senate confirmed eight nominees to U.S. District Court judgeships. Overall, the Senate has confirmed 172 of President Trump’s Article III judicial nominees—two Supreme Court justices, 48 appellate court judges, 120 district court judges, and two U.S. Court of International Trade judges—since January 2017. At the end of the 115th Congress in January 2019, the Senate had confirmed 85 of the president’s judicial nominees.
    • The confirmed nominees were:
      • Eric Komitee, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. After he received his judicial commission and took his oath, the court had three vacancies, six Republican-appointed judges, and six Democrat-appointed judges.
      • Sarah Pitlyk, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. After she receives her judicial commission and takes her oath, the court will have no vacancies, four Republican-appointed judges, and five Democrat-appointed judges.
      • R. Austin Huffaker, Jr., confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. After he receives his judicial commission and takes his oath, the court will have no vacancies, three Republican-appointed judges, and no Democrat-appointed judges.
      • David Barlow, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. After he receives his judicial commission and takes his oath, the court will have no vacancies, two Republican-appointed judges, and three Democrat-appointed judges.
      • John Sinatra, Jr., confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. After he receives his judicial commission and takes his oath, the court will have no vacancies, one Republican-appointed judge, and three Democrat-appointed judges.
      • Douglas Cole, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. After he receives his judicial commission and takes his oath, the court will have two vacancies, three Republican-appointed judges, and three Democrat-appointed judges.
      • Richard Myers II, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. After he receives his judicial commission and takes his oath, the court will have no vacancies, four Republican-appointed judges, and no Democrat-appointed judges.
      • Sherri Lydon, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. After she receives her judicial commission and takes her oath, the court will have one vacancy, four Republican-appointed judges, and five Democrat-appointed judges.
    • There are 94 U.S. District Courts. They are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system.

Friday, December 6

California congressional candidate filing period concludes

  • The filing deadline to run for elected office in California was December 6, 2019. All 53 of California’s U.S. House seats will be up for election in 2020.
  • The California Secretary of State will release the official candidate list on December 26. The primary is scheduled for March 3, and the general election is scheduled for November 3, 2020.
  • California's statewide filing deadline is the fourth to take place in the 2020 election cycle. The next statewide filing deadline is on December 9 in Texas.

Congress is in session

Both the Senate and the House will be in session next week. Click here to see the full calendar for the first session of the 116th Congress.

'SCOTUS is in session

The Supreme Court will hear six arguments this week. To learn about the current 2019-2020 term, click here.

WHAT'S ON TAP NEXT WEEK

Here's what is happening in Federal politics this week.

Monday, December 9

Congressional candidate filing period to end in Texas

  • The major-party filing deadline to run for elected office in Texas is on December 9, 2019. Independent candidates must submit their declaration of intent to run on the same date, but the final filing deadline for independent candidates is June 25, 2020. In Texas, prospective federal candidates may file for the following offices:
    • U.S. Senate - one seat
    • U.S. House - 36 districts
  • The primary is scheduled for March 3, and the general election is scheduled for November 3, 2020.
  • Texas’s statewide filing deadline is the fifth to take place in the 2020 election cycle. The next statewide filing deadline is on December 18 in Ohio.

SCOTUS to hear cases on statute of limitations, appropriations riders, and the Hague Convention

  • The U.S. Supreme Court will hear six cases this week. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current term.
  • December 9
  • In Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla, a Colombian national living in the United States, was deported in 1998 after being convicted of aggravated felonies. In 2016, Guerrero-Lasprilla petitioned to reopen his removal proceedings. An immigration judge denied the petition on the grounds it was untimely. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the appeal. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals also dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The case is consolidated with Ovalles v. Barr.
The issue: (1) Is a request for equitable tolling—in which a plaintiff can bring a claim if they did not discover an injury until after the statute of limitations had expired—judicially reviewable as a "question of law?"
(2) Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by §1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a petitioner lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.
  • In Thryv Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Inforocket.com, Inc. sued Keen, Inc. in 2001 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,818,836 (the "836 Patent"). In 2003, the companies merged and the charges were dropped. They later became Dex Media, Inc. In 2011, Click-To-Call Technologies, LP ("CTC") acquired the 836 Patent. In 2012, CTC filed charges of patent infringement against Dex Media. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") allowed for an inter partes review (IPR) of the patent challenge. An IPR is a procedure that allows a third party to both challenge a patent claim and request review of the challenge before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as long as the challenge is filed within a statutory time limit.
CTC challenged the IPR, arguing it was barred from time limitations under Title 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board rejected CTC's time bar challenge and ruled in favor of Dex Media. On appeal, the Federal Circuit issued a split decision vacating the Board's grant of IPR. Dex Media petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In July 2019, Dex Media changed its name to Thryv, Inc.
The issue: Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Board's decision to institute an IPR upon finding that § 315(b)'s one-year time bar did not apply.
Title 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) reads, "The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable."
  • December 10
  • In Maine Community Health Options v. United States, as part of Section 1342 of the ACA in 2010, the federal government established a program to lessen the risk of insurers entering the new health insurance marketplace. Under the program, the government agreed to pay a portion of the costs to insurers who experienced higher-than-expected costs. In 2014, Congress included appropriations riders, or provisions, barring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from using its appropriations toward Section 1342 payments.
Insurer Maine Community Health Options sued the federal government. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held the government was not obligated to distribute payments under Section 1342 because of Congress' appropriations provisions.
The case was consolidated with Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States.
The issue: (1) Given the "cardinal rule" disfavoring implied repeals—which applies with "especial force" to appropriations acts and requires that repeal not be found unless the later enactment is "irreconcilable" with the former—can an appropriations rider whose text bars the agency's use of certain funds to pay a statutory obligation, but does not repeal or amend the statutory obligation, and is thus not inconsistent with it, nonetheless be held to impliedly repeal the obligation by elevating the perceived "intent" of the rider (drawn from unilluminating legislative history) above its text, and the text of the underlying statute?
(2) Where the federal government has an unambiguous statutory payment obligation, under a program involving reciprocal commitments by the government and a private company participating in the program, does the presumption against retroactivity apply to the interpretation of an appropriations rider that is claimed to have impliedly repealed the government's obligation?
  • In Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S., Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pleaded guilty to violating his supervised release by committing a new offense. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas revoked his term of supervised release and sentenced him to one year in prison to be served consecutively with the sentence from his new conviction. Holguin-Hernandez challenged his one-year sentence as greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.
The issue: Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant's sentence.
  • December 11
  • Monasky v. Taglieri concerns the standard of review for "habitual residence" and how to establish "habitual residence" for purposes of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Domenico Taglieri, an Italian, and Michelle Monasky, an American, were a married couple living in Italy when they had a daughter, A.M.T. Both parents began applications for Italian and U.S. passports for their daughter. In 2015, Taglieri revoked his permission for A.M.T.'s U.S. passport. Two weeks later, Monasky took A.M.T. to the United States. Taglieri petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for A.M.T's return to Italy under the Hague Convention. The district court granted Taglieri's petition. On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court's ruling.
The issue: (1) Whether a district court's determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as seven circuits have held, under a deferential version of de novo review, as the First Circuit has held, or under clear-error review, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held.
(2) Where an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, whether a subjective agreement between the infant's parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
  • In McKinney v. Arizona, James McKinney was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the sentence after an independent review. A federal district court denied McKinney's petition for habeas corpus. On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals instructed the district court to grant the habeas corpus petition. After another independent review, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences.
The issue: (1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted.
(2) Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), requires resentencing.

Where was the president last week?

  • On Monday, Trump traveled to London.
  • On Tuesday, Trump met with the President of the French Republic, the Prime Minister of Canada, and participated in NATO leaders events.
  • On Wednesday, Trump participated in NATO events.
  • On Thursday, Trump attended a luncheon with the Permanent Representatives of the United Nations Security Council and traveled back to the U.S.
  • On Friday, Trump participated in a roundtable on small business and red tape reduction accomplishments.

Federal Judiciary

  • 97 federal judicial vacancies
  • 58 pending nominations
  • 18 future federal judicial vacancies


About

The Tap covered election news, public policy, and other noteworthy events from February 2016 to February 2022.

Back to top • More articles

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Federal_Tap:_Three_U.S._House_members_say_they_won’t_seek_re-election&oldid=7968530"