1. U.S. Senate confirms Trump's 200th judicial nominee to 5th Circuit
2. Take advantage of Ballotpedia’s July 4th Coffee Club special
3. U.S. Supreme Court: CFPB structure is unconstitutional but the agency survives

U.S. Senate confirms Trump's 200th judicial nominee to 5th Circuit

On June 24, the U.S. Senate confirmed President Trump’s 200th Article III judicial nominee. This is the second-fastest time to arrive at a president’s 200th judicial confirmation since Jimmy Carter. Of the past seven presidents, Carter’s 200th nominee was confirmed in the shortest amount of time at 1,126 days into his presidency. Trump’s 200th confirmation landed 1,251 days into his presidency.  

The Senate confirmed Cory Wilson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. With Wilson’s confirmation, Trump has appointed two Supreme Court justices, 53 appellate court judges, 143 district court judges, and two U.S. Court of International Trade judges. 

The 5th Circuit is one of 13 U.S. courts of appeal. They are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal courts. After Wilson receives his judicial commission and takes his judicial oath, the court will have no vacancies, 12 Republican-appointed judges, and five Democrat-appointed judges. 

Wilson's confirmation fills the only current U.S. Circuit Court vacancy. The last time this occurred was in July 1984, when Judge John Butzner's seat on the 4th Circuit was vacant.

There are two upcoming Circuit Court vacancies. Andrew Brasher was already confirmed to succeed Judge Ed Carnes on the 11th Circuit. Carnes is expected to assume senior status on June 30. Justin Walker was confirmed to succeed Judge Thomas Griffith on the D.C. Circuit. Griffith is expected to retire on September 1.

Learn more

       

---

Take advantage of Ballotpedia’s July 4th Coffee Club special

As readers of The Daily Brew, I already know that you enjoy the blend of coffee and politics. We’ve teamed up with the coffee subscription service MistoBox to bring fresh coffee deliveries to your door and even more political information to your inbox.

First, click the link below to answer a few questions about your coffee preferences and delivery schedule. Then, MistoBox will ship you a 12oz bag of freshly roasted coffee selected based on your answers. With each monthly shipment, you'll get an email with timely, nonpartisan political information, including primary election and voter registration reminders.

We’re making it simple to stay caffeinated and up-to-date on politics during this busy election year. And for a limited time, we’re offering 40% off your first order with the code COFFEECLUB2020. Coffee Club members can feel good knowing a portion of their purchase goes to support Ballotpedia as we work to build the encyclopedia of American politics.

U.S. Supreme Court: CFPB structure is unconstitutional but the agency survives

So far this term, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued opinions in 52 cases. It is expected to release eight more. Normally, June 30 would have ended the October 2019-2020 term, but it was extended due to the coronavirus pandemic. The court will be releasing more opinions today and will continue to do so throughout July for the first time since 1996. 

Yesterday, we told you about a Supreme Court ruling that state governments cannot prohibit using public funds on religious private schools. Today, let’s look at another ruling from this week. 

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Seila v. CFPB that limiting the power of the president to remove the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) violates the separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution. Congress created the CFPB as an independent agency with a director insulated from direct presidential control in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Here’s a rundown of the opinion:

• The court recognized historical exceptions to the president's removal power in Humphrey's Executor (1935) and Morrison v. Olson (1988), but declined to apply those precedents to the CFPB because it held that the agency exercised significant executive power unlike the actors involved in those cases. The court also held that even though the removal power restrictions were unconstitutional, they could be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act, which left the rest of the agency intact.

• Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined the first three parts of Roberts’s opinion. Part IV of his opinion, which did not receive support from the full majority, argued in favor of eliminating the removal power restriction and leaving the rest of the law intact. 

• Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. She argued that the majority's decision "commits the Nation to a static version of governance, incapable of responding to new conditions and challenges." She agreed with the judgment that the removal power provision was severable from the rest of the law, but disagreed that the removal power restrictions were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will conduct further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion.

If you want to stay on top of the whirlwind world of the federal judiciary of the United States, click here to sign up for our Bold Justice newsletter.

Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.