Welcome to the Oct. 7 edition of Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.

It’s time, dear reader! It’s the first day of the October 2024-2025 term, and we are excited to bring you SCOTUS’s first set of arguments for the year. We also have a bonus section for this edition, so be sure to read the newsletter to the very end.

Are you ready? 

Good. Let’s gavel in.

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 thirteen new cases to its merits docket since our Sept. 9 issue. To date, the court has agreed to hear 40 cases for the 2024-2025 term. Sixteen of those cases have been scheduled for argument. 

• Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos 
• Cunningham v. Cornell University 
• BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman
• FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.
• Barnes v. Felix
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (Consolidated with Interim Storage Partners v. Texas)
• Gutierrez v. Saenz
• Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services
• Perttu v. Richards
• Thompson v. United States
• CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (Consolidated with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.)
• McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp.
• Waetzig, Gary V. Halliburton Energy Services

Arguments

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

Click the links below to learn more about these cases:

Oct. 7

• Williams v. Washington concerns 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 and the exhaustion of state administrative remedies.
  • The question presented:“Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 in state court.”
• Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger concerns a plaintiff’s ability to compel a remand to state court by changing the complaint to remove federal questions.
  • The questions presented:
    
    “1. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction. 
    
    “2. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.”

Oct. 8

• Garland v. VanDerStok concerns a challenge to a 2022 federal rule that aims to regulate firearms without serial numbers.
  • The questions presented: 
    
    “1. Whether ‘a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,’ 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a ‘firearm’ regulated by the Act.
    
    “2. Whether ‘a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver’ that is ‘designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,’ 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a ‘frame or receiver’ regulated by the Act.”
• Lackey v. Stinnie concerns the standard necessary to qualify as a prevailing party in a case in order to be awarded attorney’s fees. The questions presented:
  
  “1. Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 
  
  “2. Whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.”

Oct. 9

• Glossip v. Oklahoma concerns the Due Process Clause.
  • The questions presented: 
    
    “1. a. Whether the State’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). 
    
    “b. Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
    
    “IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS’ HOLDING THAT THE OKLAHOMA POST-CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT PRECLUDED POST-CONVICTION RELIEF IS AN ADEQUATE AND INDEPENDENT STATE-LAW GROUND FOR THE JUDGMENT. JUSTICE GORSUCH TOOK NO PART.”

Opinions

SCOTUS has not yet issued any opinions for the October 2024-2025 term. 

Upcoming SCOTUS dates

Here are the court’s upcoming dates of interest:

• Oct. 7: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
• Oct. 8: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
• Oct. 9: SCOTUS will hear arguments in one case.
• Oct. 11: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.

The Federal Vacancy Count

The Federal Vacancy Count tracks vacancies, nominations, and confirmations to all United States Article III federal courts in a one-month period. This month’s edition includes nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from Sept. 2, through Oct. 1. 

Highlights

• Vacancies: There have been two new judicial vacancies since the Sept. 9 report. There are 44 vacancies out of 870 active Article III judicial positions on courts covered in this report. Including the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, 44 of 890 active federal judicial positions are vacant.  
• Nominations: There were no new nominations since the Sept. 9 report. 
• Confirmations: There were eight new confirmations since the Sept. 9 report.

Vacancy count for October 1, 2024

A breakdown of the vacancies at each level can be found in the table below. For a more detailed look at the vacancies in the federal courts, click here.

*Though the United States territorial courts are named as district courts, they are not Article III courts. They are created in accordance with the power granted under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution. Click here for more information.

New vacancies

Two judges left active status since the previous vacancy count, creating Article III life-term judicial vacancies. The president nominates individuals to fill Article III judicial position vacancies. Nominations are subject to U.S. Senate confirmation.

• Judge James E. Shadid assumed senior status on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.
• Judge Glenn Suddaby assumed senior status on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The following chart tracks the number of vacancies in the U.S. Courts of Appeals from President Joe Biden’s (D) inauguration to the date indicated on the chart.

U.S. District Court vacancies

The following map shows the vacancy percentages in the U.S. District Courts as of Oct 1.

New nominations

President Biden did not announce any new nominations since the previous report.

Since taking office in January 2021, Biden has nominated 251 individuals to Article III positions.

New confirmations

There have been eight new confirmations since the previous report:

• Judge Adam Abelson, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
• Judge Jeannette Vargas, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
• Judge Mary Kay Lanthier, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.
• Judge Laura Provinzino, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
• Judge Kevin Ritz, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
• Judge Mary Kay Costello, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
• Judge Michelle Williams Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
• Judge Byron Conway, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

As of Oct. 1, 2024, the Senate has confirmed 213 of President Biden’s Article III judicial nominees—166 district court judges, 44 appeals court judges, two international trade judges, and one Supreme Court justice—since his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021. To review a complete list of Biden’s confirmed nominees, click here.

Comparison of Article III judicial appointments over time by president (1981-Present)

• Presidents have made an average of 191 judicial appointments through Oct. 1 of their fourth year in office.
• President Donald Trump (R) made the most appointments through Oct. 1 of his fourth year with 218. President Ronald Reagan (R) made the fewest with 153.
• President Trump (R) made the most appointments through four years with 234. President Reagan (R) made the fewest through four years with 166.
• President Reagan (R) made the most appointments through one year in office with 41. President Barack Obama (D) made the fewest with 13.
• President Bill Clinton (D) made the most appointments through two years with 128. President Obama (D) made the fewest with 62.

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 this list for updates on federal judicial nominations.

Spotlight: A historical look at SCOTUS activity

Earlier this year, Ballotpedia got to sit down with Dr. Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUS for an episode of our On the Ballot podcast. We discussed a number of SCOTUS-related topics, including the history of SCOTUS cases and what we can expect from the Court this term.

Here are some interesting facts from our session with Dr. Feldman:

• 1988 marked the beginning of a trend where SCOTUS accepted fewer cases. This was due to the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, which gave SCOTUS more discretion over the cases that it would select. Before those two policies, SCOTUS used to be required to hear certain appeals.
  • According to Dr. Feldman:

“The mandatory appeals made up most of the Supreme Court’s docket for most of the 100 and some years. There were very few things that the Supreme Court was actually taking on writ of cert, which is the discretionary petition that’s filed when somebody wants the Supreme Court to hear a case.”

• SCOTUS made more than 300 case decisions in the 1890s. Around the 1920s, there was a sharp decline in decisions to less than 150. This number decreased again in the late 80s with less than 100 decisions. Last year, SCOTUS issued 62 decisions. The chart below from Empirical SCOTUS illustrates this change over time.

• Traditionally, SCOTUS reverses more cases than it affirms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is the largest jurisdiction by population and has 29 authorized judicial posts. 

• According to Ballotpedia’s data, since 2007, SCOTUS has decided more cases originating from the Ninth Circuit (243) than from any other circuit. The next-most Article III circuit court is the Fifth Circuit, which had 105 decisions. During that span, SCOTUS overturned a greater number of cases originating from the Ninth Circuit (192). 

• Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh usually have one of the highest agreement rates on the court. According to Empirical SCOTUS, this year, they had a 95% agreement rate. 

• Dr. Feldman also highlighted some contentious cases that he’ll be keeping an eye on this term, including Garland v. VanDerStok and United States v. Skrmetti. 

Click here to watch the full podcast and access more On the Ballot episodes. Special thanks to Dr. Feldman for sitting down to chat with us. 

Looking ahead

We’ll be back on Oct. 14 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.