All posts by Chris Schmidt

OT 2017, Weekly Roundup

Week in Review: Arguments and Opinion from the Week of November 6, 2017

Leave a comment

The Court heard oral arguments in only two cases this week, previously discussed here, and it issued its first opinion of the Term. In Hamer v. Neighborhood Services of Chicago, argued on October 10, the Court unanimously held, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, that a rule of appellate procedure governing extensions to file a notice of appeal did not create a jurisdictional deadline. Only time limits provided in statutes create jurisdictional bars. ISCOTUS now described the oral argument in Hamer here. Justice Ginsburg prides herself on writing opinions quickly and recently dubbed herself “Rapid Ruth” in a speech, as described by the Associated Press here.

On Tuesday, the Court heard argument Patchak v. Zinke, which presented the question of whether a statute that directed federal courts to “promptly dismiss” any legal action pertaining to a particular tract of land, without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws and enacted while a lawsuit was pending, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

David Patchak, a resident who lived near the Bradley Property – the tract of land at issue in the case – sued Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke in 2008, claiming Zinke lacked the authority to put the tract into a trust for the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (the “Gun Lake Tribe”), who subsequently built a casino on the land. After the Supreme Court decided that Patchak had standing to sue in that suit, President Obama signed into law the Gun Lake Trust Reaffirmation Act in 2014, which provided that any legal action relating to the Bradley Property “shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed.”

Scott Gant, representing Mr. Patchak, argued that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by passing a statute that directs the dismissal of specific litigation. Gant acknowledged that, pursuant to Ex Parte McCardle, a case from 1869, Congress has the authority to statutorily strip jurisdiction from federal courts, but that the Gun Lake Trust Reaffirmation Act in an unconstitutional abridgment of judicial power because it directs the dismissal of a specific lawsuit, rather than passing a law that limits jurisdiction more generally.

Ann O’Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General in the Department of Justice, represented Zinke. She argued that, because the Court has previously held that Congress may enact jurisdictional rules and apply them to pending cases, such a rule poses no separation of powers problem.

Pratik Shah represented the Gun Lake Tribe, who joined the suit as an intervening defendant. Shah argued that the Court should not rule the Act unconstitutional just because Patchak’s case was the only case at the time that the Act applied to.  “Instead,” he said, “you should look at the words that Congress enacted which was trying to insulate a category of cases. . . from any federal court exercising jurisdiction. That’s precisely what Congress has done for over 150 years dating back to McCardle and in a line of cases since then.”

On Monday, the Court heard arguments in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, Inc. That  case seeks to resolve a circuit split over the scope of a safe harbor provision of the Bankruptcy Code, prohibiting avoidance of a transfer made by or to a financial institution. Under bankruptcy law, when a person or entity declares bankruptcy, some transfers of funds that they made beforehand can be recovered, or “avoided.” The safe harbor provision here protects transfers made to or from financial institutions.

This post was drafted by Bridget Flynn and edited by Elisabeth Hieber, both ISCOTUS Fellows and Chicago-Kent Class of 2019.

Conference Report, OT 2017

Conference Report – November 3, 2017 Conference

Leave a comment

As part of its Order List from its November 3 Conference, the Supreme Court on Monday issued two summary decisions reversing lower court rulings in favor of habeas petitioners. It did not otherwise grant review in any new cases.

The first case, Dunn v. Madison, involves the execution of an Alabama inmate who cannot remember his crime due to neurological health issues stemming from a series of strokes. According to the ABA Journal, Madison was sentenced to death for murdering a police office in 1985. His execution is now approaching, and he sought habeas relief due to his memory loss, alleging that because he cannot remember the crime, he is not competent to be executed. The state trial court concluded he failed to show that he is unable to rationally understand that he is being executed as punishment for murder. He sought habeas relief, and the federal judge held the state trial court made a reasonable decision and correctly applied precedent — all that is required under the governing statute, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that because Madison does not recall the offense, he cannot possibly understand the connection between the crime and his execution.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed and stated precedent has not established that “a prisoner is incompetent to be executed because of a failure to remember his commission of the crime, as distinct from a failure to rationally comprehend the concepts of crime and punishment.” Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer, concurred, explaining that the issue presented is substantial and important and would be worthy of the Court’s attention if brought on direct appeal. Because the case came to the Court on habeas, however, AEDPA, it could not address the issue directly and was limited to determining if the state court’s holding was not an unreasonable application of “clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court.”

In addition to joining Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence, Justice Breyer wrote a concurrence solely on his own behalf. Justice Breyer pointed to constitutional questions due to the aging class of inmates on death row. He wrote that the “lengthy periods of imprisonment between death sentence and execution can deepen the cruelty of the death penalty while at the same time undermining its penological rational.” As Robert Barnes of The Washington Post noted, “no conservative justice rebutted him, [although i]n the past, they have alleged that it is the numerous appeals and creativity of defense lawyers that have postponed the imposition of the death penalty.” Breyer also raised the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty itself, something that he suggested the Court should consider in his opinion in Glossip v. Gross.

In the second case, Kernan v. Cuero, Michael Cuero pleaded guilty to two charges after he caused a car accident while under the influence of methamphetamines and left another man injured. Cuero was on parole from previous drug related offenses and was unlawfully carrying a firearm with him at the time of the accident. As explained by Court House News, his original plea bargain carried a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison, but prosecutors sought to amend the original criminal complaint after the plea deal and before the sentencing date. They argued that due to his other previous offenses, Cuero fell under California’s “three strikes” law, meaning that he was eligible for a much longer sentence. Although the trial court allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea, he ultimately pleaded guilty again and was sentenced to 25 years to life.

On habeas review, Cuero argued that the state courts should have enforced the original plea deal. The Ninth Circuit held that the trial court wrongly refused to do so. The Supreme Court however, applying AEDPA, held that, “to the contrary, no ‘holding of this court’ requires the remedy of specific performance under the circumstances present here,” and thus reversed the lower court decision, thus upholding Cuero’s conviction and sentence. The opinion in Kernan was an unsigned per curiam opinion and there were no separate opinions.

This post was drafted by Matthew Webber and edited by Elisabeth Hieber, both ISCOTUS Fellows and members of Chicago-Kent Class of 2019.

OT 2017, Weekly Preview

Arguments: Week of November 6, 2017

Leave a comment

The Court will hear only two arguments this week — one each on Monday and on Tuesday. It has also indicated that the first opinion(s) may be issued on Wednesday. In addition, orders from last Friday’s Conference will be released on Monday.

On Monday, the Court will hear oral arguments in a bankruptcy case, Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. In this case the Court is being asked to resolve a circuit split about when funds transferred before a bankruptcy can be recovered by the bankruptcy trustee.

Tuesday the Court will hear Patchak v. Zinke, which poses the question of whether Congress violated the separation of powers principle of the Constitution when it passed legislation mandating federal courts to dismiss a lawsuit. David Patchak, a Michigan resident, sued Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Department of Interior, for allotting a tract of land to the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians to build a casino near his property. After the case was under way — in fact, after the Supreme Court determined that sovereign immunity did not preclude it — Congress passed the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act, which provides that any case relating to the land at issue be “promptly dismissed,”, but that made no substantive changes to the governing law. The Government contends that this provision does not violate the Constitution because Congress has the ability “to define and limit the jurisdiction of the inferior courts of the United States.” Marcia Coyle of PBS NewsHour describes the issues in the case, explaining that, “[s]eparation-of-powers issues go to the fundamental structure of our Constitution.”  The case also poses the question of whether a statute that does not amend a substantive or procedural law, but deprives a petitioner the right to pursue his pending lawsuit, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

This post was drafted by ISCOTUS Fellow Michael Halpin, Chicago-Kent Class of 2020, and edited by ISCOTUS Fellow Bridget Flynn, Chicago-Kent Class of 2019.

This Day In Supreme Court History

This Day in Supreme Court History—November 5, 1987

Leave a comment

On this day in 1987, President Ronald Reagan’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Douglas H. Ginsburg, admitted to using marijuana while he was a student at Cornell University and as a professor at Harvard Law School. Ginsburg’s admission would end his chance to occupy the seat that had opened when Justice Lewis Powell had announced his retirement the previous June.

Image result for Douglas H. Ginsburg

Ginsburg had been a Supreme Court nominee for just nine days. President Reagan nominated him after the Senate rejected Reagan’s initial nominee for Powell’s seat, Judge Robert H. Bork. At the time of his nomination, Ginsburg was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Nina Totenberg of NPR first broke the news of Ginsburg’s marijuana use. Several of the nominee’s former colleagues from Harvard Law, where he taught from 1975 to 1983, disclosed to the press that they had witnessed Ginsburg smoking marijuana during his time on the faculty. Ginsburg admitted to the allegations later that day. “It was a mistake,” he stated in a press conference, “and I regret it.”

The revelation was especially controversial because of the Reagan Administration’s aggressive “War on Drugs” campaign. When Reagan nominated Ginsburg, he presented him as someone who would be tough on crime. “No one has rights when criminals are allowed to prey on society,” Reagan stated in announcing Ginsburg’s nomination. “Judge Ginsburg understands that.”

Just two days after Totenberg’s revelation and the nominee’s admission, Ginsburg withdrew his name from consideration. On November 11, President Reagan nominated Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who received unanimous approval in the Senate on February 3, 1988.

 

This post was drafted by ISCOTUS Fellow Elisabeth Hieber and edited by ISCOTUS Fellow Bridget Flynn, both Chicago-Kent Class of 2019. It was overseen by ISCOTUS Co-Director Professor Christopher Schmidt.

OT 2017, Weekly Roundup

Week in Review: Arguments from the Week of October 30, 2017

Leave a comment

This week, the Supreme court heard arguments in four cases. As our weekly preview explained, this week’s cases raised questions about habeas procedure and appellate review standards, and reviewed the meaning of the tolling provision for state court claims in supplemental jurisdiction cases.

On Monday, the Court heard arguments in two cases. The first was Ayestas v. Davis.  This case involves 18 U.S.C. §3599(f), which provides funding for indigent habeas petitioners to hire mitigation specialists – expert or investigative assistants – to help develop claims about ineffective counsel in capital cases. The case raises the question of whether a capital defendant who requests such funds should have to meet the Fifth Circuit threshold of showing “substantial need” for such services on a “viable” and not merely speculative claim, or rather meet the somewhat lower standard that such services are “reasonably necessary.”

Ayestas’ counsel, University of Maryland law professor Lee Kovarsky, argued that “reasonably necessary” should be understood as what a reasonable attorney for a client with finite means would find necessary. The New York Times gave an account of the debate about the distinction here. Kovarsky further argued that by using the higher standard, the Fifth Circuit is effectively requiring counsel to conduct a full investigation into his client’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim to affirm that it is viable before he would be allowed to request funding for the experts that could assist in making such a claim.  Scott A. Keller, the Solicitor General of Texas, argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction because a claim of funds under the CJA (Criminal Justice Act) is an administrative request and is outside of the purview of judicial power. This argument generated skeptical questioning from Justices Sotomayor and Breyer. Keller further argued that Ayestas’ trial representation was not deficient in a way that prejudiced Ayestas. Transcript available here. SCOTUSblog has more here.

Monday’s second case was Wilson v. Sellers. According to Jurist, this case asks whether a court sitting in habeas proceedings should “look through” a summary state court ruling to the last reasoned decision, or whether the Court’s decision in Harrington v. Richter nullifies such a presumption. In this case, the Eleventh Circuit, en banc, held that a Georgia Supreme Court’s one-sentence order was the final adjudication on the merits and thus the relevant state court decision for the federal courts to review on habeas.

Mark E. Olive, Wilson’s lawyer, argued that the holding in Richter should be applied narrowly so that the state supreme court’s summary order denying his client’s appeal would be the type of order that a federal habeas court could “look through” to review a lower court’s denial of relief. Sarah Hawkins Warren, Solicitor General of Georgia, argued that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) does not require that the court offer reasoning or a statement of opinions when ruling on a CPC request. Transcript available here. SCOTUSblog has a more detailed argument analysis here.

Tuesday, the court heard arguments in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC. The question presented is whether, in a bankruptcy proceeding, a trial court’s decision that an individual is, or is not, a non-statutory insider should be reviewed under a standard of clear error or de novo. Gregory A. Cross, counsel for the creditor, U.S. Bank National Association, argued that the case presents a mixed question of law and fact – that the legal test the Ninth Circuit articulated was a two-pronged test to determine a) whether the parties’ relationship was sufficiently close that it could be compared to a relationship between statutory insiders, and b) whether the parties transacted at arm’s length. Cross further argued that the guidelines and principles that govern the application of the standard to the underlying historical facts of a case are a question of law and therefore whether an individual is a non-statutory insider should be determined by de novo review. Daniel L. Geyser, arguing for the debtor, the Village at Lakeridge, LLC, argued that the question about whether the parties transacted at arm’s length is a question only of fact and therefore should be reviewed only for clear error. Geyser was joined in this argument by Morgan Goodspeed on behalf of the U.S. Solicitor General. During oral argument, it became clear that the standard of review may only make sense if the Court also reviews the legal standard for determining whether an individual is an insider. According to Jurist, the court may have to take up the legal standard question before being able to determine whether an individual’s non-statutory insider status is a question of law or fact. If this were to occur, the Court could request additional briefing and set the case for re-argument, or chose instead to dismiss the case entirely. Transcript available here. SCOTUSblog has more here, including an explanation of the significance of being an “insider” for purposes of bankruptcy law.

Finally, on Wednesday, the Court heard arguments in Artis v. District of Columbia. The issue presented in this case is whether the tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) freezes the statute of limitations “time clock” on tag-along state court claims or only suspends the statute of limitations for 30 days after a supplemental jurisdiction case is dismissed from federal court. Adam G. Unikowsky, counsel for Artis, noted that statutes most commonly stop the clock on a statute of limitations. Unikowsky also argued that there are several reasons refiling in state court may take longer than 30 days, including possibly rewriting the complaint based on new facts that came out in discovery or state pleading rules differing from the federal pleading rules; figuring out which state or court to file in; and finding a new lawyer who specializes in state court proceedings. Loren L. Alikhan, Deputy Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., argued that the statute’s 30-day grace period and “express and self-conscious deference” to a state’s ability to set a longer tolling period for supplemental jurisdiction claims makes §1367(d) a fundamentally different type of tolling scheme. Alikhan further argues that a case dismissed without prejudice is treated as if it had never been brought – meaning that the statute of limitations has been running the whole time the claims were pending in federal court. The 30-day grace period protects the litigant by providing time to file otherwise time-barred complaints in state court while protecting defendants from complaints being filed years after the claim had accrued. Transcript available here.

This post was drafted by ISCOTUS Fellow Eva Dickey, Chicago-Kent Class of 2020, and was edited by ISCOTUS Fellow Bridget Flynn, Chicago-Kent Class of 2019.

Conference Report, OT 2017

Conference Report – October 27 Conference

Leave a comment

On Monday, the Court released its Order List from the October 27 Conference. It didn’t add any new merits cases to the docket, but there were still a few noteworthy orders. In one closely watched case, the Court denied certiorari in 616 Croft Ave., LLC et al. v. West Hollywood, CA. The builders of a proposed condominium unit were required, by a City of West Hollywood ordinance, to pay an “affordable housing fee” of $540,393.28 to subsidize the construction of low-cost housing in the city. This requirement kicked in automatically upon approval of the building permit, without any need of the City to show that the project in question created a need for low-cost housing. The issue in 616 Croft Ave is whether a permit condition that is legislatively mandated is subject to scrutiny under the doctrine of unconstitutional-conditions. In the petition for writ of certiorari filed for this case, reasons for granting the writ centered around the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the limitations it might place on a government’s authority to require private property owners to dedicate private property to public use via the permit process. The Court had considered this case at the previous four conferences prior to October 27, and now that they have decided not to take up the property rights issue presented in 616 Croft Ave, the previous ruling in favor of the City of West Hollywood will stand. In response to the Court’s decision not to consider this case, West Hollywood’s attorney Mike Jenkins said “[t]he city is pleased that its efforts to create housing for people at all economic levels in our community remains intact.” On the other side of the coin, the Cato Institute argued in its amicus brief that this case demonstrates how “municipalities and counties have devised schemes to evade the prohibition on uncompensated takings.” In Lexology, David L. Preiss explains what denial of certiorari means for housing in California, noting the state’s cities “are now relatively unrestricted in their adoption of inclusionary housing ordinances as they apply to ‘ownership’ projects, both as to ‘set aside’ and ‘in lieu fee’ provisions, and they probably do not need to conduct any formal ‘nexus’ studies to support them.”

The joint motion to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari was granted in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States. The issues in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. stem from the restructuring of the energy markets in the State of California during the late 1990s, designed to make wholesale electricity go through two main market exchanges, facilitating sales between buyers (such as the Petitioners) and sellers. There are two questions presented in this case: (1) whether selling energy through centralized market exchanges forms a contractual relationship between buyers and federal agencies selling the energy, thus giving the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by buyers to recover for overcharges; and (2) whether Pacific Gas and Electric Co. was in such a relationship with the federal agencies for those sales.

The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in both Modrall, Robert G. v. Deutsch, Kimberley, et al. and In Re Raymond L. Rogers were denied. Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are filed when a petitioner is seeking to proceed without paying the normal costs associated with the cost of being in court. If leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted in a lower court (i.e., counsel was appointed for an indigent party), then no additional affidavit stating proof of the need for waiving fees is required and the petitioner need only cite the relevant law or attach the order of appointment.  The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis here were denied because of Rule 39.8, which states that if the Court finds that a petition for writ of certiorari or a related petition is either frivolous or malicious, the Court can deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Robert M. Yablon of the Yale Law Journal dives into the certiorari process with a particular focus on current Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor. In his interesting piece, Yablon notes “in forma pauperis petitions account for the vast majority of the petitions the Court receives–some seventy-five to eighty percent. Yet, in most years, they account for less than twenty percent of the Court’s grants of certiorari.” The petitions for writ of certiorari and writ of habeas corpus, respectively, were dismissed in Modrall and In Re Raymond.

This post was drafted by ISCOTUS Fellow Zoe Arthurson-McColl, Chicago-Kent Class of 2020, and was edited by ISCOTUS Editorial Coordinator Anna Jirschele, Chicago-Kent Class of 2018.

Labor Relations, News, OT 2017

Senator Warren, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Ethics

Leave a comment

Senator Elizabeth Warren is worried about conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court. Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court has no formal code of conduct. Supreme Court justices are largely on their own when it comes to off-the-court activities and deciding when to recuse because of a conflict of interest.

Image result for elizabeth warren

In a Politico article  titled “The Supreme Court Has An Ethics Problem,” Senator Warren crticizes Justice Neil Gorsuch’s recent keynote speech at a luncheon that the Fund for American Studies hosted at Trump International Hotel. The Fund for American Studies is subsidized by the Bradley Foundation, which, Senator Warren explains, is also funding a constitutional challenge to public sector unions that the Court will be hearing this term in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Since the Court split 4-4 when faced with this very same issue last term, it is highly likely that Justice Gorsuch will cast the deciding vote in this case.

Senator Warren concludes her article by announcing that she is co-sponsoring the “Supreme Court Ethics Act,” which would require the Court to adopt a formal code of conduct that would be aimed toward “eliminating ethical questions and conflicts of interests.”

 

This post was drafted by ISCOTUS Fellow Zoe Arthurson-McColl, Chicago-Kent Class of 2020, edited by ISCOTUS Fellow Bridget Flynn,  Chicago-Kent Class of 2019, and overseen by ISCOTUS Co-Director Professor Christopher Schmidt.

OT 2017, Weekly Preview

Arguments: Week of October 30, 2017

Leave a comment

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of this week. Monday’s cases, which are both capital cases, present questions about habeas procedure. Tuesday’s cases are about appellate review standards.  The argument on Wednesday will review the meaning of the tolling provision for state court claims in supplemental jurisdiction cases.

The first case the Court will hear on Monday is Ayestas v. Davis, a case appealed from the Fifth Circuit. As The Washington Examiner explains, Ayestas, a Honduran national, was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman during a home invasion.  On federal habeas review, he claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective and failed to uncover evidence regarding his upbringing and mental illnesses, evidence that might have persuaded the jury not to sentence him to death. He moved for funding under 18 U.S.C. §3599(f) to hire mitigation specialists to help develop this claim. That statute provides funding to capital defendants when expert or investigative assistance is “reasonably necessary.” The district court denied the motion based on Fifth Circuit precedent providing that investigative assistance is available only if the habeas petitioner can show a “substantial need” for such assistance by fully describing the underlying claim and showing that it is “viable.” The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Ayestas argues that the 5th Circuit’s test for “substantial need” is inconsistent with the statute and with congressional intent and that the current test interferes with federal habeas counsel’s ability to provide meaningful representation to habeas petitioners by creating obstacles in the development and investigation of constitutional claims. The American Bar Association filed an important amicus brief underlining the second argument that the Fifth Circuit’s approach makes it difficult or impossible for counsel representing habeas petitioners to meet their professional duties. For more information check out SCOTUSblog’s detailed argument preview.

Monday’s second case is Wilson v. Sellers, a capital case from Georgia. As SCOTUSblog explains, The Court will have to determine whether a federal court sitting in habeas proceedings should “look through” a summary state court ruling to the last reasoned decision as held in Ylst v. Nunnemaker, or if the Court’s decision in Harrington v. Richter nullifies such a presumption. In this case, petitioner Marion Wilson was convicted and sentenced to death for his role in the 1996 murder of a Georgia corrections officer. Wilson appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and the habeas court denied the relief despite substantial evidence. In an en banc decision, the Eleventh  Circuit held that the state Supreme Court’s one-sentence order was the final adjudication on the merits under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) and thus the relevant state court decision to review, rather than the previous and more in-depth decision from the state’s habeas court. The distinction matters because AEDPA requires substantial deference to the findings and holdings of the state court, although Wilson argues that in a significant majority of cases looking through a summary state court decision to a reasoned opinion from a lower court will not change the result. Instead, he argues that this approach will allow the analysis to shift from what the state court might have said to what it actually said. This analysis would be less burdensome and costly to the states, would respect comity and federalism, and would not upset the high bar to relief that was set under AEDPA.

In U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, to be argued on Tuesday, the issue is whether, for bankruptcy purposes, a trial court’s determination that individual is (or is not) a non-statutory insider should be reviewed under a standard of clear error or de novo. For a detailed review of the issue in this case check out SCOTUSblog and Law360. Finally, on Wednesday, the Court will hear Artis v. District of Columbia. In Artis, the issue is whether the tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) suspends the statute of limitations for 30 days after a claim dismissal, or does it freeze the statute of limitations “time clock.” Artis was a government employee who was fired after she filed a discrimination suit against the District of Columbia Department of Health, her employer. 28 U.S.C. §1367 allows supplemental jurisdiction, through which a litigant can file factually-related state and federal claims in federal court, provided that the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the federal claim(s). When this occurs, the federal court can hear the state court claims, even if they would generally not be adjudicated in federal court. However, if the federal court rejects the federal claim that was necessary to bring the tag-along state claims, the unresolved state claims can be dismissed without prejudice. The question before the court next week will focus on how long the plaintiff has, once the state claims are dismissed in federal court, to refile in state court. For more on the potential ramifications of this case from SCOTUSblog, click here.

This post was drafted by ISCOTUS Fellow Eva Dickey, Chicago-Kent Class of 2020 and edited by ISCOTUS Fellow Matthew Webber, Chicago-Kent Class of 2019.

History of the Court, This Day In Supreme Court History

This Day in Supreme Court History — October 27, 2005

Leave a comment

On this day in 2005, Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court. George W. Bush had nominated Miers to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor. According to NPR, conservatives had publicly expressed displeasure with her lack of judicial experience and concern that she might not be as pro-life as they would like. And “[c]onservative legal scholars, such as former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, complained that Miers had no experience with constitutional law and no known judicial philosophy to guide her thinking on important issues, such as private property rights and religious freedom.”

Moreover, Bush’s nomination of Miers, who was his White House counsel, elicited accusations of cronyism from, among others, Ronald J. Pestritto, of the conservative think tank, The Claremont Institute. “The substantial weight of the evidence of her capacity to be a justice — that is, the key government positions she has held — are all the fruits of her continuing relationship with the president,” Pestritto wrote.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), expressed disappointment with Miers’s 56-page response to their questions. The committee asked her to resubmit it with additional documents from her work in the White House. Miers’s withdrawal, and Bush’s statement accepting the withdrawal, cited the need to keep executive information private. Miers wrote:

Dear Mr. President:

I write to withdraw as a nominee to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been greatly honored and humbled by the confidence that you have shown in me, and have appreciated immensely your support and the support of many others. However, I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country.

As you know, members of the Senate have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue.

As I stated in my acceptance remarks in the Oval Office, the strength and independence of our three branches of government are critical to the continued success of this great Nation. Repeatedly in the course of the process of confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

I share your commitment to appointing judges with a conservative judicial philosophy, and I look forward to continuing to support your efforts to provide the American people judges who will interpret the law, not make it. I am most grateful for the opportunity to have served your Administration and this country.

Later that day, Bush publicly said he “reluctantly accepted” the decision. After touting her accomplishments and strengths, Bush said:

I understand and share her concern, however, about the current state of the Supreme Court confirmation process. It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president’s ability to receive candid counsel.

Harriet Miers’ decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.

I am grateful for Harriet Miers’ friendship and devotion to our country. And I am honored that she will continue to serve our nation as White House counsel. My responsibility to fill this vacancy remains. I will do so in a timely manner.

Spector said he was “sorry to hear that Miss Miers has decided to remove her name from consideration.” He added: “I think that this is a sad episode in the history of Washington, D.C. … The way Harriet Miers has been treated is really disgraceful.”

Leahy said of the withdrawal: “I look forward to consulting with the President on his third nominee to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, and I hope it is a decision he approaches with the necessary independence from partisan factions.”

Justice Samuel Alito later filled the vacancy. (The first nominee was John Roberts, but when Chief Justice Rehnquist died, Bush renominated Roberts to replace Rehnquist.)

This post was drafted by Bridget Flynn and was edited by Matthew Webber, both ISCOTUS Fellows and Chicago-Kent Class of 2019.

Justices

News from and about the Court

Leave a comment

Arguments in the Supreme Court start up again on Monday. In the meantime, here’s some fun coverage of the Court and the Justices.

Ariane de Vogue of CNN wrote an interesting article regarding how the Court “shuns the spotlight.” The Court traditionally bans cameras or live recording in the courtroom during oral arguments, but posts the taped audio recordings afterwards. Only those present in the courtroom, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was present during Gill v. Whitford, get to hear what goes on behind the closed doors in real time, and no one but those present ever get to see it. However, many argue that the Court should have live cameras and/or recordings taking place during the arguments. Josh Douglas of the University of Kentucky College of Law tweeted recently, “SCOTUS still living in the ‘70s when it comes to technology and transparency.” Others, such as Congressman Gerry Connolly stated the Court “is not some mystical priesthood, and “that in the digital age it strains credulity that this modest effort at transparency would prove impossible.” However, it does not appear that the Court is going to change their practices on this issue anytime soon. Justice Souter once remarked, “I can tell you the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body.” Justice Sotomayor also commented that cameras may disrupt the Court’s process, and “might lead to some justices playing to the cameras or others to refrain from asking questions.” Chief Justice Roberts however appears to be making the Court’s work more accessible to the public by posting opinions online with their announcement and posting transcripts and audio recordings as soon as possible.

In other news, the film “Marshall” premiered on Friday. As Pete Williams of NBC notes the film marked the 50th anniversary of when Justice Thurgood Marshall took his spot on the bench as the first African-American Supreme Court justice. According to Williams, the film chronicles Marshall’s days as a pioneering civil rights attorney and focus on his work defending an innocent black chauffeur falsely accused of raping and murdering his employer. Williams also notes that Justice Elena Kagan, a former law clerk to Justice Marshall, called Marshall “the greatest lawyer of the 20th century, bar none, not even a close contest.” ISCOTUSnow featured a review of the film.

Justice Ginsburg’s trainer, Bryan Johnson was featured in People Magazine this week. Diana Pearl of People reports that Justice Ginsburg is a “fitness junkie” and has worked out with Johnson on Wednesdays and Fridays every week since 1999. Johnson wrote a book titled “The RBG Workout: How She Stays Strong…and You Can Too!” Ginsburg prefers to work out in one of the two Supreme Court gyms, and began doing so after she beat cancer for the first time. She prefers to listen to NPR or classical music during her workouts, is a pro at doing pushups, and is no “normal” 84-year-old. Pearl completed the Ginsburg workout and stated it was “intense.” Check out the Chicago Tribune for more information on the “T.A.N.” (tough as nails) justice and her workout routine.

The Seattle Times reported recently that Justice Gorsuch’s “office mate” is an elk named Leroy shot by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. When Justice Gorsuch inherited Scalia’s seat on the bench he inherited his office as well. The mounted elk head was presented to Gorsuch by Scalia’s former law clerk, Glen Summers who was present on the hunting trip in which Leroy was killed by the late hunting enthusiast Justice. According to Justice Gorsuch, he is “delighted to share space with Leroy,” and they “share a few things in common.” The Justice said they are both native Coloradans and both “received a rather shocking summons to Washington,” and “neither of us is ever going to forget Justice Scalia.”

This post was drafted by ISCOTUS Fellow Matthew Webber and edited by ISCOTUS Fellow Elisabeth Hieber, both Chicago-Kent Class of 2019.