Welcome to the March 3 edition of Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.
Give me your hand and give me your love,
give me your hand and dance with me.
A single flower, and nothing more,
a single flower is all we’ll be.
-Gabriela Mistral (translated by Ursula K. Le Guin)
We are back with another edition of your favorite newsletter. It’s our favorite time of year, dear reader. As spring steadfastly slinks closer and closer, more SCOTUS opinions are being released. Which means we’ve got a bunch of updates coming your way. We hope you’re sitting down because we’re gaveling in!
Follow Ballotpedia on X, Facebook, Youtube, and Bluesky, or subscribe to the Daily Brew for the latest news and analysis.
We #SCOTUS and you can, too!
Grants
SCOTUS has accepted one new case to its merits docket since our Feb. 24 issue. To date, the court has agreed to hear 64 cases for the 2024-2025 term and two cases for its 2025-2026 term. By this time during the 2023-2024 term, SCOTUS had agreed to hear 62 cases.
Arguments
The Supreme Court will hear four arguments this week. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ current term.
Click the links below to learn more about these cases:
March 3
- CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. concerns jurisdictional requirements under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)
- The questions presented: “Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.”
- BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman concerns aiding-and-abetting liability under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)
- The questions presented: “Whether Rule 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.”
March 4
- Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos concerns lawsuits alleging knowing violations of laws applicable to U.S. gun sales.
- The questions presented: “1. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the ‘proximate cause’ of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
“2. Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to ‘aiding and abetting’ illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.”
March 5
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas concerns whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to contract with private entities to store nuclear waste temporarily.
- The questions presented: “1. Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq., which authorizes a ‘party aggrieved’ by an agency’s ‘final order’ to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.
“2. Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.”
In its October 2023-2024 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 62 cases. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ previous term.
Opinions
SCOTUS has ruled on four cases since our Feb. 24 edition. The court has issued rulings in 15 cases so far this term. By this time during the 2023-2024 term, SCOTUS had ruled on five cases.
Feb. 25
Glossip v. Oklahoma was argued before the court on Oct. 9, 2024.
The case: The case concerns the Due Process Clause.
The outcome: In a 5-3 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court also held that the prosecution violated its constitutional duty to correct false testimony under Napue v. Illinois. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch took no part in the decision of the case.
Lackey v. Stinnie was argued before the court on Oct. 8, 2024.
The case: The case concerns the standard necessary to qualify as a prevailing party in a case in order to be awarded attorney’s fees.
The outcome: In a 7-2 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The court held that the plaintiff drivers in this case do not qualify as prevailing parties eligible for attorney’s fees under §1988(b) because no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief for reasons that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.
Feb. 26
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services was argued before the court on Jan. 14.
The case: The case concerns whether a voluntary dismissal, as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a), qualifies as a “final judgment, order, or proceeding,” as described in Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b).
The outcome: The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in a 9-0 ruling, holding that a “case voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a) counts as a ‘final proceeding’ under Rule 60(b).” Justice Samuel Alito delivered the court’s opinion.
Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc. was argued before the court on Dec. 11, 2024.
The case: The case concerns disgorgement under the Lanham Act in a federal trademark dispute between two companies using the same surname.
The outcome: In a 9-0 opinion, the court vacated and remanded the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that when awarding the defendant’s profits to the plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act,
a court can only award profits that come from the defendant itself.
Federal court action
Nominations
Since taking office for his second term, President Donald Trump (R) has not nominated any individuals to federal judgeships on Article III courts.
During his first term in office, President Trump nominated 274 individuals to federal judgeships and confirmed 234 Article III judges. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here.
Confirmations
The Senate has not confirmed any nominees since President Trump took office.
Vacancies
The federal judiciary currently has 43 vacancies, all of which are for lifetime Article III judgeships. As of publication, there were no pending nominations.
According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, there are 10 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 Trump’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.
Federal courts recent news
- Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition
- The Trump administration renews its request for justices to allow the firing of U.S. Office of Special Counsel head
Looking ahead
We’ll be back on March 10 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.