Welcome to the April 21 edition of Robe & Gavel, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.
Nature’s first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf’s a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
-Robert Frost
Nothing gold can stay
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 April 7 edition. SCOTUS has not yet announced during which term they will hear oral arguments for this case. To date, the court has agreed to hear 64 cases for the 2024-2025 term and seven cases for its 2025-2026 term. By this time during the 2023-2024 term, SCOTUS had agreed to hear 62 cases.
On April 17, SCOTUS decided it would hear oral arguments on May 15 to determine if the federal government is allowed to implement President Donald Trump’s (R) executive order ending birthright citizenship.
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:
April 21
- Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. concerns whether the structure of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force violates the Constitution’s appointment clause in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.
- The questions presented: “Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the structure of the Task Force violates the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the Task Force from the HHS Secretary’s supervision.”
- Parrish v. United States concerns whether a party who submits a notice of appeal between the expiration of their original appeal deadline and the reopening of appellate filing must submit a duplicative, second notice after the reopening period begins.
- The questions presented: “The Question Presented is whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened.”
April 22
- Mahmoud v. Taylor concerns religious exercise rights and elementary school education on gender and sexuality. Click here for more information on this case.
- The questions presented: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and with-out notice or opportunity to opt out?”
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch concerns 26 U.S.C. § 6330.
- The questions presented: “Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.”
April 23
- Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency concerns a challenge to the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to grant California a waiver under the Clean Air Act, allowing the state to set its own vehicle emissions standards.
- The questions presented: “1. Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.
“2. Whether EPA’s preemption waiver for California’s greenhouse-gas emission standards and zero-emission- vehicle mandate is unlawful.”
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 two cases since our April 7 edition. The court has issued rulings in 26 cases so far this term. By this time during the 2023-2024 term, SCOTUS had issued rulings in 18 cases.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS ruled on since April 7:
April 7
Trump v. J.G.G. was decided per curiam. Click here to read more about it.
April 17
Cunningham v. Cornell University was argued before the court on Jan. 22.
The case: whether Cornell University violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as claimed by Casey Cunningham.
Cunningham, a former employee at Cornell, sued the university, claiming it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by failing to adequately monitor their employees’ defined contribution plans, which resulted in underperforming investment options and excessive fees. Cunningham also alleged that Cornell engaged in transactions with Fidelity and the Teachers Insurance Annuity Association that are prohibited under 29 U.S. Code § 1106 of ERISA.
29 U.S. Code § 1108 of ERISA allows “reasonable arrangements with a party in interest … if no more than reasonable compensation is paid therefor.” In this case, a party of interest could include an entity that provides services to the retirement plan. Fidelity and the Teachers Insurance Annuity Association provide investment management and
Recordkeeping-related services to Cornell.
According to SCOTUSblog, “The question the courts are grappling with is whether the beneficiaries can state a complaint merely by alleging that Cornell has violated Section 1106 itself – by transacting with somebody from whom it is buying services – or whether they also must allege that the transaction is not protected by Section 1108, perhaps because compensation for those services is unreasonably high.”
The outcome: In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that plaintiffs making a §1106(a)(1)(C) claim must only plausibly allege that a plan fiduciary, its manager, engaged in a prohibited transaction. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.
Federal court action
Nominations
Since taking office for his second term, President Trump 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 46 vacancies, 45 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 were 13 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
- Justices will hear arguments on Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship
- Trump asks Supreme Court to step in on birthright citizenship
- Challengers to Trump’s order tell justices to allow birthright citizenship to stand
Correction: In our April 7 edition of Robe & Gavel, there was an error in our Opinions section. We stated that Department of Education v. California was decided on April 7. It was decided on April 4. We regret the error.
Looking ahead
We’ll be back on April 28 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.