Alexander Hamilton may have thought them the least dangerous branch, but we at Ballotpedia think federal courts are the most exciting!
------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

[Ballotpedia's Bold Justice]

Welcome to the January 13 edition of _Bold Justice_, Ballotpedia's newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S. We hope you saved some bubbly, since we're toasting the new year and new SCOTUS sittings! Don't miss out on the excitement! Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) or subscribe to the Daily Brew ([link removed]) to catch up on the latest political news.

------------------------------------------------------------
[We #SCOTUS so you don't have to]
 

 
** ARGUMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in five cases this week. Click here ([link removed]) to read more about SCOTUS' current term.

In its October 2018 term ([link removed]) , SCOTUS heard arguments in 69 cases. Click here ([link removed]) to read more about SCOTUS' previous term.

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

 
** JANUARY 13
------------------------------------------------------------

* In Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group ([link removed]) , apparel companies Marcel Fashion Group, Inc. ("Marcel") and Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. ("Lucky Brand") filed several lawsuits against each other for trademark infringement. In 2011, Marcel sued Lucky Brand a third time for trademark infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled a previous lawsuit barred Marcel from suing Lucky Brand. On appeal, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

On remand, Lucky Brand moved to dismiss the suit, arguing a previous legal settlement agreement barred Marcel from suing Lucky Brand. The district court agreed, dismissing the case. Marcel appealed to the 2nd Circuit, which vacated the Southern District of New York's ruling and remanded the case a second time.

Lucky Brand appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the 2nd Circuit's decision conflicted with decisions from other circuit courts on similar issues.

THE ISSUE: Whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles—which are intended to prevent the same issue or claim from being relitigated between the same parties—can bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.
 

* In Thole v. U.S. Bank ([link removed]) , James Thole and Sherry Smith sued U.S. Bank over its management of a defined benefit pension plan ([link removed]) . Thole and Smith alleged the bank violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and engaged in prohibited transactions, causing the plan to become underfunded.

U.S. Bank sought to dismiss the case, arguing the plaintiffs did not have the legal right to sue and the statute of limitations had run out on the ERISA claims. The district court dismissed in part and granted in part U.S. Bank's motion.

In 2014, the plan became overfunded. The district court dismissed the case as moot. Thole and Smith appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's ruling.

The plaintiffs then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, arguing the 8th Circuit's ruling conflicted with other circuit court decisions.

THE ISSUES:
(1) May an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating actual or imminent financial loss?

(2) May an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(2) demonstrating actual or imminent financial loss?

(3) Whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.

29 U.S.C. 1132 ([link removed]) (a) deals with civil enforcement and says a participant or beneficiary can bring civil action to recover benefits, enforce or clarify rights, or ask for "appropriate relief." 

 
** JANUARY 14
------------------------------------------------------------

* In Kelly v. United States ([link removed]) , William Baroni and Bridget Kelly were convicted of defrauding federally funded programs, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and conspiracy against civil rights.

Baroni and Kelly allegedly participated in a scheme to reduce local traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge, which spans Fort Lee, New Jersey, and New York City, to punish Fort Lee's mayor for refusing to endorse Gov. Chris Christie's (R) 2013 re-election bid. The alleged scheme became known as "Bridgegate."

Baroni and Kelly appealed their convictions to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The 3rd Circuit affirmed the fraud convictions but reversed and vacated the civil rights convictions.

Kelly appealed the 3rd Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the 3rd Circuit decision conflicted with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and decisions from other circuit courts.

THE ISSUE: Does a public official "defraud" the government of its property by advancing a "public policy reason" for an official decision that is not her subjective "real reason" for making the decision?
 

* Romag Fasteners v. Fossil ([link removed]) concerns federal trademark law. Romag Fasteners, Inc., sued Fossil for patent and trademark infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. A jury found Fossil guilty of unintentional patent and trademark infringement. The jury decided Fossil should pay more than $6.8 million in profits to Romag.

In a separate trial, the district court ruled Romag was not entitled to receive profits because Fossil's infringement was unintentional.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the infringement was unintentional.

Romag appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to clarify a circuit court split on requiring proof of willful infringement for rewarding profits.

THE ISSUE: Whether, under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer's profits for a violation of section 43(a), id. § 1125(a).

The Lanham Act provides for a national system of trademark registration and trademark protection for federally registered marks.

 
** JANUARY 15
------------------------------------------------------------

* In Babb v. Wilkie ([link removed]) , Dr. Noris Babb, a pharmacist working at the VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida, sued the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) secretary, alleging age and gender discrimination and a hostile work environment. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected Babb's claims, granting summary judgment to the VA secretary.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling on Babb's gender discrimination claim and affirmed the district court's ruling on Babb's age discrimination and hostile work environment claims. The court remanded the case.

Babb petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing the 11th Circuit's decision disadvantaged federal employees bringing discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967.

THE ISSUE: Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any "discrimination based on age," 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.

But-for causation indicates that but for an action, the result would not have happened. 

 
** UPCOMING SCOTUS DATES
------------------------------------------------------------

Here are upcoming dates of interest in January:

* January 13: 

* SCOTUS will release orders.
* SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.

* January 14: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
* January 15: SCOTUS will hear arguments in one case.
* January 17: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.

------------------------------------------------------------
[SCOTUS trivia]

The Supreme Court originally had only six justices. Your question for the week: Who was the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

* John Jay ([link removed])
* Alexander Hamilton ([link removed])
* Richard Henry Lee ([link removed])
* John Adams ([link removed])

Choose an answer to find out!

------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Court action]

 
** CONFIRMATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------

The Senate has confirmed 15 nominees since our December 9 issue.

* Patrick Bumatay ([link removed]) and Lawrence VanDyke ([link removed]) , confirmed to two seats on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ([link removed]) . After they received their judicial commissions, the court had:

* No vacancies.
* 13 Republican-appointed judges and 16 Democrat-appointed judges.

* Matthew McFarland ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ([link removed]) . After he received his judicial commission, the court had:

* One vacancy.
* Four Republican-appointed judges and three Democrat-appointed judges.

* Anuraag Singhal ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida ([link removed]) . After he received his judicial commission, the court had:

* One vacancy.
* Ten Republican-appointed judges and seven Democrat-appointed judges.

* Bernard Jones ([link removed]) and Jodi Dishman ([link removed]) , confirmed to two seats on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ([link removed]) . After they received their judicial commissions, the court had:

* One vacancy.
* Six Republican-appointed judges and no Democrat-appointed judges.

* Kea Riggs ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico ([link removed]) . After she received her judicial commission, the court had:

* Two vacancies.
* Three Republican-appointed judges and two Democrat-appointed judges.

* Daniel Traynor ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ([link removed]) . After he received his judicial commission, the court had:

* One vacancy
* One Republican-appointed judge and no Democrat-appointed judges.

* Stephanie Dawkins Davis ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ([link removed]) . After she received her judicial commission, the court had:

* No vacancies.
* Four Republican-appointed judges and 11 Democrat-appointed judges.

* Robert J. Colville ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ([link removed]) . After he received his judicial commission, the court had:

* Two vacancies
* Six Republican-appointed judges and two Democrat-appointed judges.

* Karen Marston ([link removed]) and John Gallagher ([link removed]) , confirmed to two seats on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ([link removed]) . After they received their judicial commissions, the court had:

* One vacancy.
* 12 Republican-appointed judges and nine Democrat-appointed judges.

* Mary Kay Vyskocil ([link removed]) and Lewis Liman ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ([link removed]) . After they received their judicial commissions, the court had:

* Four vacancies.
* Five Republican-appointed judges and 19 Democrat-appointed judges.

* Gary R. Brown ([link removed]) , confirmed to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ([link removed]) . After he received his judicial commission, the court had:

* Two vacancies.
* Seven Republican-appointed judges and six Democrat-appointed judges.

Overall, the Senate has confirmed 187 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—133 district court judges, 50 appeals court judges, two Court of International Trade judges, and two Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.

 
** NOMINATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------

President Trump has announced four new Article III ([link removed]) nominees since our December 9 edition.

* John Badalamenti ([link removed]) of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ([link removed]) .
* Stephen McGlynn ([link removed]) of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ([link removed]) .
* Thomas Cullen ([link removed]) of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia ([link removed]) .
* Anna Manasco ([link removed]) of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ([link removed]) .

The president has announced 238 Article III ([link removed]) judicial nominations since taking office January 20, 2017. The president named 69 judicial nominees in 2017, 92 in 2018, and 77 in 2019. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here ([link removed]) .

[link removed]

 
** VACANCIES
------------------------------------------------------------

The federal judiciary currently has 81 vacancies. As of publication, there were 16 pending nominations.

According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts ([link removed]) , an additional 12 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 ([link removed]) .

 
** COMMITTEE ACTION
------------------------------------------------------------

The Senate Judiciary Committee ([link removed]) has not reported any new nominees out of committee since our December 9 edition.

Do you love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count ([link removed]) , 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 ([link removed]) for our most current count.

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

------------------------------------------------------------
[A judge you oughta know]

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 ([link removed]) . 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 visiting the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ([link removed]) . The District of New Jersey has original jurisdiction over cases filed in New Jersey. Decisions of the court may be appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ([link removed]) .

The District of New Jersey has 17 authorized judgeships. There are currently six vacancies. The breakdown of current active judges by appointing president is:

* George W. Bush (R): Four judges
* Barack Obama (D): Seven judges

------------------------------------------------------------
[Looking ahead]

In our December 9 edition, we said we'd send out _Bold Justice _on January 6, but with the holidays, we lost track. Apologies! _Bold Justice_ will definitely be back January 20 with more information on the federal judiciary.

============================================================

Bold Justice has thousands of loyal readers each week.

WANT TO REACH THEM? ADVERTISE IN THIS EMAIL!

Contact ** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
 for details.

-------------------------

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.
 

** Click here to support our work ([link removed])

 
-------------------------
_Copyright © 2020, All rights reserved._

OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS:

Ballotpedia
8383 Greenway Blvd
Suite 600
Middleton, WI 53562


 

** [Facebook] ([link removed])

 

** [Twitter] ([link removed])

 Decide which emails you want from Ballotpedia.
** Unsubscribe [link removed]
 or ** update your subscription preferences [link removed]