Welcome to the November 12 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. Keep up with the latest political news by following us on Twitter or subscribing to the Daily Brew.

Arguments

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in four cases this week. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' current term.

In its October 2018 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 69 cases. Click here to read more about SCOTUS' previous term.

Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS will hear this week:

November 12

• Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California involves whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lawfully ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
  
  The case is consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and McAleenan v. Vidal.
  
  In 2017, DHS decided to end the DACA program. The Regents of the University of California sued DHS in the Northern District of California, alleging the decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act and denied respondents' right to equal protection and due process. The district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from rescinding DACA. The government filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on May 15, 2018, but had not issued an opinion as of November 5, 2018, when the government asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In its appeal, the government defended its decision to end DACA as a lawful wind-down of a discretionary policy because of the program's dubious legal status.
  
  The issue: (1) Whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is judicially reviewable and (2) whether DHS's decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.

• In Hernandez v. Mesa, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa shot and killed 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Hernandez. The Hernandez family filed charges against Mesa. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed the case.
  
  After several appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Hernandez v. Mesa in 2016. Click here for more information about the 2016 case. At that time, SCOTUS vacated the 5th Circuit's judgment and remanded the case so the 5th Circuit might reconsider its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017). In Ziglar, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it could not authorize an action for implied damages against former federal officials under the court's precedent in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971).
  
  On remand, the 5th Circuit ruled the Hernandez family could not rely on Bivens to file charges and affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. Bivens provides for relief under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when a U.S. government agent uses excessive, deadly force. 
  
  The issue: Whether federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a federal law enforcement officer violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

November 13

• Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media concerns race discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Entertainment Studios, an African American-owned television network operator, sued Comcast Corporation, alleging Comcast refused to contract with Entertainment Studios because of race. Entertainment Studios claimed Comcast violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Entertainment Studio's claims. On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's ruling.
  
  The issue (from Oyez): Does a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 require the plaintiff to show but-for causation, or only show race is a motivating factor?
  
  But-for causation indicates that but for an action, the result would not have happened.

• In Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, Ritzen Group and Jackson Masonry both claimed the other breached contract after a sale of property fell through. A lawsuit Ritzen filed against Jackson in Tennessee state court was stayed after Jackson filed for bankruptcy.
  
  Ritzen filed a motion to lift the stay, which the bankruptcy court denied. Ritzen then filed a claim against Jackson in bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court found Ritzen, not Jackson, breached the contract. On appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling. On appeal again, the 6th Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court and bankruptcy court.
  
  In its petition for review, Ritzen argued the 6th Circuit diverted from SCOTUS precedent and was in conflict with the 1st and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeal. Ritzen said the 6th Circuit held "that an order denying relief from the automatic stay is always a final order. ... Guidance from [SCOTUS] is necessary to ensure that all bankruptcy litigants, regardless of forum, have a firm understanding of how to determine the finality of an order entered by a bankruptcy court."
  
  The issue: Whether an order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay is a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).

Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the upcoming dates of interest in November:

• November 12: 
  • SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
  • SCOTUS will release orders.
• November 13: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
• November 15: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.
• November 18: SCOTUS will release orders.
• November 22: SCOTUS will conference.

Which of the following is NOT within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit's jurisdiction?

1. Maine
2. New Hampshire
3. Puerto Rico
4. Vermont

Choose an answer to find out!

Confirmations

The Senate has confirmed four nominees since our November 4 issue. 

• Danielle Hunsaker, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. After she receives her judicial commission, the court will have:
  • No vacancies.
  • 13 Republican and 16 Democratic presidential appointees.
• Jennifer Philpott Wilson, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. After she receives her judicial commission, the court will have:
  • No vacancies.
  • Three Republican and three Democratic presidential appointees.
• Lee Rudofsky, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. After he receives his judicial commission, the court will have:
  •  No vacancies.
  •  Two Republican and three Democratic presidential appointees.
• William Nardini, confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.  After he receives his judicial commission, the court will have:
  •  One vacancy.
  • Six Republican and six Democratic presidential appointees.

The Senate has confirmed 161 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—112 district court judges, 45 appeals court judges, two Court of International Trade judges, and two Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.

Nominations

President Trump has announced seven new Article III nominees since our November 4 edition.

• Andrew Brasher of Alabama to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
• John Cronan of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• Scott Hardy of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
• John Heil III of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma.
• John Hinderaker of Arizona to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
• Iris Lan of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• Matthew Schelp of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The president has announced 233 Article III judicial nominations since taking office Jan. 20, 2017. The president named 69 judicial nominees in 2017 and 92 in 2018. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here.

Vacancies

The federal judiciary currently has 102 vacancies. As of publication, there were 48 pending nominations.

According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, an additional 19 judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status during Trump’s first term.

For more information on judicial vacancies during Trump's first term, click here.

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee reported six new nominees out of committee since our November 4 edition.

• Steven Menashi, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
• Barbara Lagoa, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
• Robert Luck, nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
• Silvia Carreño-Coll, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
• John Gallagher, nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Sherri Lydon, nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Do you love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count, published at the start of each month, monitors all the faces and places moving in, moving out, and moving on in the federal judiciary. Click here for our most current count.

Need a daily fix of judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? Click here for continuing updates on the status of all federal judicial nominees.
Or, if you prefer, we also maintain a list of individuals President Trump has nominated.

In each issue of Bold Justice, we highlight a federal court you should know more about. Right now, we’re taking a closer look at the 94 U.S. District Courts. The district courts are the general trial courts of the U.S. federal court system.
There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.  

In this edition, we're placing a spotlight on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The Western District of New York has original jurisdiction over cases filed in the following counties:

Decisions of the court may be appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Western District of New York has four authorized judgeships. There is currently one vacancy. The breakdown of current active judges by appointing president is:

• Barack Obama (D): Three judges

Bold Justice will be back Dec. 2 with more information on SCOTUS and the federal judiciary.

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.