|
|
|
|
We have opinions! The Supreme Court issued 17 opinions last week. The highlights include rulings in all three redistricting cases, Lucia v. SEC, and Carpenter v. United States. Here we go!
Quick note: Next week's edition will be our last weekly edition. After that we will switch to monthly editions. Please email us with any questions!
|
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 63 cases. The court usually issues the remainder of its opinions by the end of June. Here are this week’s opinions:
- On June 18, the Supreme Court issued rulings in Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone, two partisan gerrymandering challenges. The plaintiffs in Gill alleged that Wisconsin's state legislative district plan had been gerrymandered to benefit Republicans. The plaintiffs in Benisek alleged that Maryland's Sixth Congressional District was drawn to benefit Democrats. In neither of these rulings did the court directly address whether a district map can be struck down as unconstitutional for giving one political party advantage over another. Instead, today's rulings were made on standing grounds (as in Gill) or procedural grounds (as in Benisek).
As a result of these rulings, no immediate changes to any district maps are expected. Both cases will return to federal district court for further proceedings. The only remaining redistricting case before the court this term is Abbott v. Perez, a case involving allegations of racial gerrymandering in Texas' congressional and state legislative district maps. A decision is expected before month's end. At this time, there are no redistricting cases on the court's docket for the coming term, although the court was expected to consider a partisan gerrymandering challenge out of North Carolina at its private conference on June 21, 2018.
- On June 21, the Supreme Court held 7-2 in Lucia v. SEC that the administrative law judges (ALJs) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are “Officers of the United States" subject to the Appointments Clause. The SEC had argued that its ALJs were not "Officers of the United States," but rather agency employees.
The ruling reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. “[T]he ‘appropriate' remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new 'hearing before a properly appointed' official,” stated Kagan. “And today we hold nothing more. … To cure the constitutional error, another ALJ (or the Commission itself) must hold the new hearing.”
Kagan delivered the opinion of the court, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Thomas and Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer, joined in part by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Breyer noted that the appointment of ALJs by the SEC violated provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—thus reaching a similar conclusion on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. Breyer also raised concerns about the constitutionality of ALJ removal protections—a question that the court declined to consider at this time—and the majority’s conclusion that a new ALJ, rather than the ALJ who originally heard the case, must preside over the new hearing. Sotomayor was joined by Ginsburg in a dissenting opinion arguing that the at SEC’s ALJs did not exercise significant authority since “they lack final decision making authority” and echoing Breyer’s concerns about the need to remedy the case through a new hearing before a different ALJ.
- On June 22, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter v. United States that the search of a defendant’s cell phone location records was a Fourth Amendment search for which the government did not have a warrant. Based on information obtained from a different suspect's cell phone records, the FBI arrested Timothy Carpenter in connection with a string of armed robberies. The FBI did not obtain a warrant for the records. Instead, the FBI relied on the Stored Communications Act (SCA), which allows cell phone providers to disclose records under certain circumstances without a warrant. Carpenter moved to suppress the records before trial, arguing that the FBI's warrantless search of the records violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. A federal district court denied the motion to suppress, and Carpenter was convicted. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions, holding that the use of the cell tower data did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment and, as such, no warrant was required in order to use the data.
- In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, the court majority reversed the Sixth Circuit. Roberts wrote that the data at issue in this case concerned two sets of precedents: the line of cases establishing "a person's expectation of privacy in his physical location and movements" and the cases establishing the third-party doctrine, which dictates that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties." Roberts concluded that Carpenter had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell phone location records and that the rationales underlying the third-party doctrine did not make sense in this case. He wrote, “Apart from disconnecting the phone from the network, there is no way to avoid leaving behind a trail of location data. As a result, in no meaningful sense does the user voluntarily assume[] the risk of turning over a comprehensive dossier of his physical movements.”
Each of the dissenting justices wrote a dissenting opinion. In their dissents, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito all argued that the court has misidentified the owner of the information at issue—they argued that the cell phone company, not Carpenter, owned the data at issue, and that therefore Carpenter had no property interest in it at all. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that he believed that the majority's dismissal of the rationale underlying the third-party doctrine was an "implicit but unmistakable conclusion." However, Gorsuch argued that Carpenter had failed to raise that argument in the lower courts.
- On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5 to 4 ruling in Abbott v. Perez, upholding the legality of all but one of 11 challenged Texas congressional and state legislative districts that had been struck down as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders by a federal district court. Associate Justice Samuel Alito penned the court's majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. The majority found that the district court had applied an improper standard of intent in striking down the following district maps: Congressional District 35 and House Districts 54, 55, 93, 103, 104, and 105. The majority also held that the maps' challengers had failed to satisfy the legal test for proving a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for the following district maps: Congressional District 27 and House Districts 32 and 34. The court upheld the district court's finding with respect to House District 90, affirming that the district had been subject to an illegal racial gerrymander. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan, in which she contended that the district court's decision should have been affirmed.
- In Rosales-Mireles v. United States, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, ruling that “the failure to correct a plain Guidelines error that affects a defendant’s substantial rights will seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial proceeding.”
- In Chavez-Meza v. United States, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Tenth Circuit, concluding that a sentencing judge in this case had “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”
- In Lozman v. Riviera Beach, the Supreme Court voted 8 – 1 to vacate the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, ruling that in this case, the existence of probable cause did not end Lozman's retaliatory arrest claims.
- In South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., the Supreme Court voted 5 – 4 to vacate the South Dakota Supreme Court ruling. The court overruled the physical presence requirement, which required a retailer to have a physical presence before a state could require the retailer to remit sales tax to the state.
- In Pereira v. Sessions, the court voted 8-1 to reverse the First Circuit’s ruling, holding that a notice to appear that does not include a time and place for a hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule under immigration laws.
- In Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, the court voted 5 – 4 to reverse the Seventh Circuit’s ruling, holding that stock options are not money remunerations within the meaning of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- In Currier v. Virginia, the court voted 5 – 4 to affirm the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect a defendant from a separate second trial after an acquittal when the defendant consents to the severance of multiple charges.
- In Ortiz v. United States, the Supreme Court voted 7 – 2 that simultaneous service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals does not violate federal statutory law or the Appointments Clause. The court dismissed as improvidently granted two cases it had consolidated with Ortiz, Dalmazzi v. United States and Cox v. United States.
- In WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., the court voted 7 – 2 to reverse the ruling of the Federal Circuit, holding that patent owners can recover lost profits for exports that infringed on their patents.
- Finally, in Ohio v. American Express, the court voted 4 - 5 to affirm the Second Circuit’s ruling, holding that the anti-steering provisions in American Express’ merchant contracts did not violate federal antitrust law.
Wondering where the cases came from this term? Check out this chart showing the number of appeals from each lower court:
|
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution gives the President of the United States the authority to nominate Supreme Court justices. Of the current nine justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy has served the longest. Which president nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy?
- Gerald Ford
- Ronald Reagan
- Bill Clinton
- Donald Trump
Choose an answer to find out! |
Confirmations
The United States Senate did not confirm any additional nominees since our last issue.
The Senate has confirmed 42 of President Trump’s nominees to federal courts tracked in Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count.
Nominations
President Trump did not announce any new nominations last week.
Vacancies
There are currently 148 vacancies in the federal judiciary. Of those 148 vacancies, 60 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 88 pending nominations to seats tracked by Ballotpedia’s Federal Vacancy Count. Check out the chart below to see vacancies of four years or more:
Committee action
The Senate Judiciary Committee did not report nominees out of committee last week.
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. |
Every week, we at Ballotpedia want to highlight a federal judge or judicial nominee. Right now, we’re taking a closer look at circuit court judges. This week, let’s get to know Reena Raggi, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and a judge you oughta know. She joined the court in 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.
Raggi served as a judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She joined the district court in 1987 after an appointment from Ronald Reagan. At the time of her appointment to the district court, she was a private practice attorney in New York, New York.
Born in Jersey City, New Jersey, Raggi graduated from Wellesley College with her bachelor's degree in 1973, and from Harvard Law School with her J.D. in 1976. |
Here’s what we’re looking ahead to this week:
- The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, June 28, 2018, to discuss nominations for the following judges:
|
|
|
|
|
