The U.S. Senate confirmed Fernando Aenlle-Rocha to the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a vote of 80-8. After he receives his federal judicial commission and takes his judicial oath, the 28-member court will have nine Democrat-appointed judges, 13 Republican-appointed judges, and six vacancies. Aenlle-Rocha will join three other judges appointed by President Donald Trump (R).
The Central District of California is one of 94 U.S. District Courts. They are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts.
Aenlle-Rocha previously served as a judge on the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in California. He was appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on May 22, 2017, and elected to the court in 2018.
Aenlle-Rocha was born in Cuba in 1961. He received his B.A. from Princeton University in 1983 and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law in 1986.
The U.S. Senate has confirmed 234 of Trump’s Article III judicial nominees—three Supreme Court justices, 54 appellate court judges, 174 district court judges, and three U.S. Court of International Trade judges—since January 2017.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued an unsigned 6-3 opinion in Trump v. New York. The case was argued on Nov. 30, 2020, and concerned congressional apportionment following the 2020 U.S. Census. The U.S. government asked SCOTUS to consider if the president could order the U.S. Secretary of Commerce to exclude individuals residing unlawfully in the U.S. from the census’ apportionment base.
In a 6-3 per curiam opinion, in which the authorship is not indicated, the court vacated the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s ruling. The court held the coalition of state and local governments and NGOs did not have standing—the legal right to sue—in this case. The court did not rule on the merits.
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer argued the plaintiffs had standing and that court precedent, law, and historical practice “demonstrate that aliens without lawful status cannot be excluded from the decennial census solely on account of that status. The Government’s effort to remove them from the apportionment base is unlawful, and I believe this Court should say so.”
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Texas v. New Mexico, which was argued on October 5, 2020. The case is part of the court’s original jurisdiction, meaning it was the first and only court to hear the case. Original jurisdiction cases are rare. According to the Federal Judicial Center, since 1960, the court “received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing.”
Texas v. New Mexico concerned an interstate water dispute. In 1949, the two states entered a compact about use of the Pecos River, which flows south from New Mexico to Texas, where it joins the Rio Grande. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court appointed a river master to issue an annual report summarizing New Mexico’s compliance with its compact obligations. In this case, Texas challenged retroactive changes the river master made to his 2014-2015 annual report.
In a 7-1 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court denied Texas’ motion to review the river master’s annual report, holding the river master correctly determined New Mexico’s water delivery credit. Kavanaugh wrote, “As the River Master correctly concluded, New Mexico is entitled to delivery credit for the evaporated water. That result is both legally accurate and entirely fair.”
Justice Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part. In his opinion, Alito wrote that he would have vacated the case and remanded it to the river master with instructions to redo his analysis.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case. She was not a member of the court when arguments were held.
As of December 14, 2020, the court had issued opinions in nine cases this term. Four cases were decided without argument.
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Texas v. New Mexico, which was argued on October 5, 2020. The case is part of the court’s original jurisdiction, meaning it was the first and only court to hear the case.
Texas v. New Mexico concerned an interstate water dispute. In 1949, the two states entered a compact about use of the Pecos River, which flows south from New Mexico to Texas, where it joins the Rio Grande. In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court appointed a river master to issue an annual report summarizing New Mexico’s compliance with its compact obligations. In this case, Texas challenged retroactive changes the river master made to his 2014-2015 annual report.
In a 7-1 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court denied Texas’ motion to review the river master’s annual report, holding the river master correctly determined New Mexico’s water delivery credit. Kavanaugh wrote, “As the River Master correctly concluded, New Mexico is entitled to delivery credit for the evaporated water. That result is both legally accurate and entirely fair.”
Justice Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part. In his opinion, Alito wrote that he would have vacated the case and remanded it to the river master with instructions to redo his analysis.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part in the case. She was not a member of the court when arguments were held.
As of December 14, 2020, the court had issued opinions in nine cases this term. Four cases were decided without argument.
The U.S. Supreme Court has released its January argument calendar for the 2020-2021 term. The court will hear five hours of oral argument in seven cases between January 11 and January 19.
So far, the court has agreed to hear 46 cases during its 2020-2021 term.
January 11, 2021
• Albence v. Guzman Chavez
January 12, 2021
• Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
January 13, 2021
• AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission (Consolidated with Federal Trade Commission v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC)
January 19, 2021
• FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project (Consolidated with National Association of Broadcasters v. Prometheus Radio Project)
• BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) announced circuit assignments for the chief justice and the associate justices on November 20. Under Title 28, United States Code, Section 42, each SCOTUS justice is assigned to one of the 13 U.S. courts of appeal. The U.S. courts of appeal are the intermediate appellate courts of the U.S. federal courts.
The circuit justice is responsible for ruling on motions arising from his or her assigned circuit and traditionally refers motions from that circuit to the court as a whole.
The circuit assignments for the 2020-2021 term are:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts – Assigned to the 4th Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and the District of Columbia Circuit.
Justice Clarence Thomas – Assigned to the 11th Circuit
Justice Stephen Breyer – Assigned to the 1st Circuit
Justice Samuel Alito – Assigned to the 3rd and 5th Circuits
Justice Sonia Sotomayor – Assigned to the 2nd Circuit
Justice Elena Kagan – Assigned to the 9th Circuit
Justice Neil Gorsuch – Assigned to the 10th Circuit
Justice Brett Kavanaugh – Assigned to the 6th and 8th Circuits
Justice Amy Coney Barrett – Assigned to the 7th Circuit
The U.S. Senate confirmed five nominees to federal judgeships—four to federal district court seats and one to the U.S. Court of International Trade. The 94 U.S. District Courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. The U.S. Court of International Trade is an Article III federal court that only hears cases involving particular international trade and customs law questions.
The U.S. Senate has confirmed 227 of President Trump’s Article III judicial nominees—three Supreme Court justices, 53 appellate court judges, 168 district court judges, and three U.S. Court of International Trade judges—since January 2017.
The nominees are:
• Benjamin Beaton, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky by a 52-44 vote. After he receives his federal judicial commission and takes his judicial oath, the five-member court will have two Democrat-appointed judges, three Republican-appointed judges, and no vacancies. Beaton will join two other judges appointed by President Trump.
• Toby Crouse, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas by a 50-43 vote. After he receives his federal judicial commission and takes his judicial oath, the six-member court will have one Democrat-appointed judge, five Republican-appointed judges, and no vacancies. Crouse will join two other judges appointed by President Trump.
• Kristi Haskins Johnson, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by a 53-43 vote. After she receives her federal judicial commission and takes her judicial oath, the six-member court will have one Democrat-appointed judge, four Republican-appointed judges, and one vacancy. Johnson will be the first judge appointed by President Trump to join the court.
• Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by a 49-41 vote. After she receives her federal judicial commission and takes her judicial oath, the 15-member court will have six Democrat-appointed judges, nine Republican-appointed judges, and no vacancies. Mizelle will join four other judges appointed by President Trump.
• Stephen Vaden, confirmed to the U.S. Court of International Trade by a 49-43 vote. After he receives his federal judicial commission and takes his judicial oath, the nine-member court will have four Democrat-appointed judges, four Republican-appointed judges, and one vacancy. Vaden will join two other judges appointed by President Trump.
In this month’s federal judicial vacancy count, Ballotpedia tracked nominations, confirmations, and vacancies from October 2, 2020, to November 1, 2020. Ballotpedia publishes a federal judicial vacancy count at the start of each month.
HIGHLIGHTS
• Vacancies: There have been two new judicial vacancies since the previous report. There are 59 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, 66 of 890 active federal judicial positions are vacant.
• Nominations: There have been two new nominations since the previous report.
• Confirmations: There have been two new confirmations since the previous report.
New vacancies
There were 59 vacancies out of 870 active Article III judicial positions, a total vacancy percentage of 6.8, the same as the previous report.
• The nine-member U.S. Supreme Court does not have any vacancies.
• Two (1.1%) of the 179 U.S. Appeals Court positions are vacant.
• 55 (8.1%) of the 677 U.S. District Court positions are vacant.
• Two (22.2%) of the nine U.S. Court of International Trade positions are vacant.
A vacancy occurs when a judge resigns, retires, takes senior status, or passes away. Article III judges, who serve on courts authorized by Article III of the Constitution, are appointed for life terms.
Two judges left active status, creating Article III life-term judicial vacancies. A presidential nomination is required to fill an Article III vacancy. Article III nominations by the president are subject to confirmation on the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
1. Judge Amy Coney Barrett left the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit after she was elevated to the Supreme Court of the United States.
2. Judge Juan Torruella died on October 26, 2020, leaving an open seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.
U.S. Court of Appeals vacancies
The following chart tracks the number of vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals from the inauguration of President Donald Trump (R) to the date indicated on the chart.
The following maps show the number of vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals at the inauguration of President Donald Trump (R), as of November 2, 2020.
New nominations
President Trump has announced two new nominations since the previous report:
1. Thomas Kirsch, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.
2. Joseph Barloon, to the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Since taking office in January 2017, President Trump has nominated 273 individuals to Article III positions.
New confirmations
Since October 2, 2020, the U.S. Senate has confirmed two of President Trump’s nominees to Article III seats:
• Amy Coney Barrett, confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
• Michael Newman, confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
As of November 1, 2020, the Senate has confirmed 220 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—162 district court judges, 53 appeals court judges, two Court of International Trade judges, and three Supreme Court justices—since January 2017.
On November 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear California v. Texas via teleconference with live audio. California v. Texas concerns the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.
President Barack Obama (D) signed the ACA into law in 2010. Section 5000A of the ACA, known as the individual mandate, established requirements for individuals to have health coverage and instituted fines for those without coverage. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), SCOTUS upheld Section 5000A as “an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.” In 2017, Congress set the amount of the shared responsibility payment at zero, effective January 1, 2019.
In 2018, 20 states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the individual mandate and claiming the ACA was unconstitutional. The lawsuit stated, “Once the heart of the ACA—the individual mandate—is declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the ACA must also fall.” Judge Reed O’Connor ruled the ACA was invalid. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled the individual mandate was unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit sent the case back to the Northern District of Texas, asking the district court to consider how much of the ACA could remain with the individual mandate considered unconstitutional.
A group of states petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing (1) the respondents do not have the legal right to challenge the ACA and (2) the ACA is constitutional.
The issues:
(1) Whether plaintiffs have the legal right to challenge the individual mandate.
(2) Whether reducing the amount specified for fines in Section 5000A(c) to zero made the individual mandate provision unconstitutional.
(3) If so, whether the individual mandate provision is severable from the rest of the ACA, i.e., whether the remainder of the ACA can remain in place if the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional.
Alexander Hamilton may have thought them the least dangerous branch, but we at Ballotpedia think federal courts are the most exciting!
Welcome to the November 9 edition of Bold Justice, Ballotpedia’s newsletter about the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and other judicial happenings around the U.S.
Election Day was almost one week ago! Ballotpedia’s Election Help Desk is designed to help you sort through the layers of complexities with this year’s elections. Click here to subscribe to the Election Help Desk Newsletter.
Otherwise, stay up to date on the latest news by following us on Twitter or subscribing to the Daily Brew.
Arguments
The Supreme Court will hear three hours of arguments this week via teleconference with live audio. The court made the decision to hold proceedings this way in accordance with public health guidance in response to COVID-19.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear 41 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ current term.
In its October 2019 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 61 cases. Click here to read more about SCOTUS’ previous term.
Click the links below to read more about the specific cases SCOTUS will hear this week:
November 9
Niz-Chavez v. Barr concerns (1) the government’s ability to serve a notice to appear to a non-citizen and (2) the immigration stop-time rule, where a non-citizen’s accrual of continuous residence ends when that person is served with a notice to appear.Agusto Niz-Chavez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, came to the United States without legal permission in 2005. In 2013, he was served with a notice to appear for deportation proceedings. The notice to appear did not include the time and place of a hearing. A second notice later indicated the hearing would take place on June 25, 2013. Niz-Chavez applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied his motion. The U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit denied a petition for review.
Congress enacted the stop-time rule as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The rule says a non-citizen’s accrual of continuous residence in the United States ends when the government serves the non-citizen with a notice to appear under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). The IIRIRA required the notice to appear to include the time and place of a hearing.
The issue: Whether the government must provide the time and place of deportation hearings in a single notice to appear document to trigger the stop-time rule under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), or whether the government can provide the information in multiple documents to trigger the rule.
Brownback v. King concerns the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA judgment bar provision says: “The judgment in an action under section 1346(b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” In 2014, FBI Special Agent Douglas Brownback and Grand Rapids Police Department Detective Todd Allen stopped James King, who violently resisted arrest. King was tried and acquitted of charges of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, aggravated assault of a police officer, and resisting arrest. He then sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971). The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled that Brownback and Allen had not violated King’s constitutional rights under Bivens. The district court also decided against King’s FTCA claims.
King appealed. On appeal, Brownback and Allen argued the FTCA judgment bar prevented King’s Bivens claims. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their argument and reversed the district court’s ruling.
The issue: Whether a final judgment against a claimant in a lawsuit brought under Section 1346(b)(1) of the FTCA prevents the claimant from bringing a claim under Bivens for the same injuries against the same government employees.
November 10
California v. Texas concerns the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare.President Barack Obama (D) signed the ACA into law in 2010. Section 5000A of the ACA, known as the individual mandate, established requirements for individuals to have health coverage and instituted fines for those without coverage.
In 2018, 20 states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the individual mandate and claiming the ACA was unconstitutional. A district court judge ruled the law was invalid. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled Section 5000A was unconstitutional and remanded the case. A group of states petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, arguing (1) the respondents did not have the legal right to challenge the law and (2) the law was constitutional.
The issues: (1) Whether plaintiffs have the legal right to challenge the individual mandate.
(2) Whether reducing the amount specified for fines in Section 5000A(c) to zero made the individual mandate provision unconstitutional.
(3) If so, whether the individual mandate provision is severable from the rest of the ACA, i.e., whether the remainder of the ACA can remain in place if the individual mandate provision is unconstitutional.
Upcoming SCOTUS dates
Here are the court’s upcoming dates of interest:
November 9:
SCOTUS will release orders.
SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
November 10: SCOTUS will hear arguments in one case.
November 13: SCOTUS will conference. A conference is a private meeting of the justices.
November 16: SCOTUS will release orders.
November 20: SCOTUS will conference.
November 23: SCOTUS will release orders.
November 30: SCOTUS will hear arguments in two cases.
Justice Clarence Thomas swore Justice Amy Coney Barrett into office on October 26, 2020. How many oaths of office are SCOTUS justices required to take?
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 October 2 to November 1.
Highlights
Vacancies: There have been two new judicial vacancies since the October 2020 report. As of November 1, 59 out of 870 (6.8%) active Article III judicial positions on the courts covered in this report were vacant.Including the United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States territorial courts, 66 of 890 active federal judicial positions are vacant.
Nominations:There have been two new nominations since the October 2020 report.
Confirmations:There have been two new confirmations since the October 2020 report.
Vacancy count for November 1, 2020
A breakdown of the vacancies at each level can be found in the table below. For a more detailed look at the vacancies on 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 have left active status, creating Article III life-term judicial vacancies, since the previous vacancy count. A presidential nomination is required to fill an Article III vacancy. Nominations are subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate.
The chart below shows the number of vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals from the inauguration of President Donald Trump (R) on January 20, 2017 to November 1, 2020.
U.S. District Court vacancies
The following map displays U.S. District Court vacancies as of November 1.
New nominations
President Trump has announced two new nominations since the October 2020 report.
The president has announced 273 Article III judicial nominations since taking office January 20, 2017. The president named 69 judicial nominees in 2017, 92 in 2018, and 77 in 2019. For more information on the president’s judicial nominees, click here.
New confirmations
Between October 2 and November 1, 2020, the Senate confirmed two of the president’s nominees to Article III courts.
Between January 2017 and November 1, 2020, the Senate confirmed 220 of President Trump’s judicial nominees—162 district court judges, 53 appeals court judges, two Court of International Trade judges, and three Supreme Court justices.
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, if you prefer, we also maintain a list of individuals the president has nominated.
In the next several Bold Justice editions, we’re taking a closer look at the U.S. Supreme Court justices. Today, we’re learning about Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Sotomayor has been an associate justice since August 6, 2009. President Barack Obama (D) nominated Sotomayor on June 1, 2009, to succeed David Souter. The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Sotomayor 68-31 on August 6, 2009.
Before joining the U.S. Supreme Court, Sotomayor was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit (1998-2009) and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (1992-1998). Before that, she was an attorney in private practice and an assistant district attorney in New York County. Click here to learn more about Sotomayor’s professional career.
Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, New York, on June 25, 1954. Her parents were born in Puerto Rico. Sotomayor graduated as valedictorian from Cardinal Spellman High School, a private Catholic school in New York City, in 1972. She earned a B.A., summa cum laude, in history from Princeton University in 1976 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979. At Yale, she co-chaired the Latin American and Native American Students Association and was published in the Yale Law Journal (where she also served as an editor).
In the 2019-2020 term, Sotomayor wrote the following opinions:
In the next several 