Robe & Gavel: SCOTUS concludes their April 2024 sitting

Welcome to the April 22 edition of Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.

In the twilight rainthese brilliant-hued hibiscus –A lovely sunset

– Matsuo Bashō

Follow Ballotpedia on X or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the latest news and analysis.

We #SCOTUS and you can, too!

Grants

SCOTUS has accepted no new cases to its merits docket since our April 8 issue. To date, the court has agreed to hear 62 cases for the 2023-2024 term. SCOTUS dismissed one case after it was accepted. Two cases have been accepted for the 2024-2025 term. 

Arguments

The Supreme Court will hear six arguments this week. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ current term.

Click the links below to learn more about these cases:

April 22

• City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson concerns laws regulating camping on public property and the Eighth Amendment.
  • The questions presented: “Does the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?”
• Smith v. Spizzirri concerns Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
  • The questions presented: “Whether Section 3 of the FAA requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.”

April 23

• Department of State v. Muñoz concerns the denial of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s non-citizen spouse.
  • The questions presented: “(1) Whether a consular officer’s refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen. “(2) Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due. “(3) Whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists and that citing Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is insufficient standing alone, due process requires the government to provide a further factual basis for the visa denial ‘within a reasonable time,’ or else forfeit the ability to invoke consular nonreviewability in court.”
• Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney concerns requests from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.
  • The questions presented: “Whether courts must evaluate the NLRB’s requests for section 10(j) injunctions under the traditional, stringent four-factor test for preliminary injunctions or under some other more lenient standard.”

April 24

• Moyle v. United States concerns Idaho’s Defense of Life Act and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA).
  • The questions presented: “Whether EMTALA preempts state laws that protect human life and prohibit abortions, like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.”

April 25

• Trump v. United States concerns the doctrine of presidential immunity.
  • The questions presented: “I. Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts, i.e., those performed within the ‘‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.’ Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 756 (1982) (quoting Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 575 (1959)).

“II. Whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause, U.S. CONST. art. I, § 3, cl. 7, and principles of double jeopardy foreclose the criminal prosecution of a President who has been impeached and acquitted by the U.S. Senate for the same and/or closely related conduct that underlies the criminal charges.”[1]

In its October 2022 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 60 cases. One case was dismissed. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ previous term.

Opinions

SCOTUS has ruled on four cases since our April 15 edition. The court has issued rulings in 18 cases so far this term. 

Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since April 15:

April 16

Rudisill v. McDonough was argued before the court on Nov. 8, 2023.The case: concerns veterans’ education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

The outcome: In a 7-2 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that veterans who accumulate benefits under the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills under separate periods of service are entitled to both benefits up to the 48-month aggregate benefits cap listed in §3695. The court’s ruling means that James Rudisill may use either benefit, in any order, up to the 48-month aggregate benefits cap. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered the opinion of the court.

Devillier v. Texas was argued before the court on Jan. 16, 2024.The case: concerns the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court concluded that property owners north of U.S. Interstate Highway 10 who were negatively affected by the flood evacuation barrier should be allowed to pursue their claims under the Takings Clause through the cause of action accessible under Texas law. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.

April 17

Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri was argued before the court on Dec. 6, 2023.

The case: concerns an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII has to show that the transfer caused some harm in employment terms or conditions. However, that harm does not need to be significant. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.

McIntosh v. United States was argued before the court on Feb. 27.The case: concerns Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 32.2.

The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court affirmed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that the time limit as outlined in Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 32.2 was a time-related directive and can therefore be enforced, even if a set deadline has passed. The court stated that time-related directives are added to encourage public officials to seek an outcome by a certain time. Even if the deadline had passed, district courts still have the authority to enforce the order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.

Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the court’s upcoming dates of interest:

• April 22: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
• April 23: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
• April 24: SCOTUS will hear arguments in one case.
• April 25: SCOTUS will hear arguments in one case.
• April 26: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.

Federal court action

Nominations

President Joe Biden (D) has announced no new Article III nominees since our 

The president has announced 223 Article III judicial nominations since taking office on Jan. 20, 2021. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here.

Committee action

The Senate Judiciary Committee has reported five new nominees out of committee since our April 15 edition.

• Nancy Maldonado, to the U.S. Circuit Court for the Seventh Circuit
• Georgia Alexakis, to the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
• Krissa Lanham, to the  U.S District Court for the District of Arizona
• Angela Martinez, to the U.S District Court for the District of Arizona
• Sparkle Sooknanan, to the  U.S District Court for the District of Columbia

Confirmations

The Senate has confirmed one new nominee since our April 15 issue.

• Ramona Villagomez Manglona, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

Vacancies

The federal judiciary currently has 42 vacancies, 41 of which are for lifetime Article III judgeships. As of publication, there were 21 pending nominations.

According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, there were 31 upcoming vacancies in the federal judiciary, where judges have announced their intention to leave active judicial status.

For more information on judicial vacancies during President Biden’s term, click here.

Do you love judicial nomination, confirmation, and vacancy information? We figured you might. Our monthly Federal Vacancy Count 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, keep an eye on our list for updates on federal judicial nominations.

Looking ahead

We’ll be back on May 13 with a new edition of Robe & Gavel. Until then, gaveling out! 

Contributions

Myj Saintyl compiled and edited this newsletter, with contributions from Sam Post, and Ellie Mikus.