A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] dismissed a lawsuit [order, PDF] on Thursday, effectively ending a long-shot attempt to force Congress to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. The lawsuit was filed by Steven Michel, an attorney based in New Mexico [profile], who claimed Congress’ inaction on the nomination resulted in a “violat[ion of] his Seventeenth Amendment [PHP image] right to elect his senators by depriving his home-state senators of a voice in the Senate.” District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled in favor of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [official website], writing that the plaintiff failed to prove a “concrete and particularized injury” as a result of Congress’ inaction. “The injury must be of individual concern; it is not enough for a party to show an undifferentiated, general interest common to all members of the public,” Contreras wrote in the memorandum. The ruling is likely to be the final attempt to force a vote on Garland before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office on January 20, at which time he is expected to nominate his own choice for candidate to replace the late justice Antonin Scalia [JURIST report].

Outgoing US President Barack Obama [official website] nominated [JURIST report] Garland, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court in March. Garland was appointed to the DC Circuit in 1997 by Bill Clinton and became Chief Judge in February 2013. Republican senators had pledged to block any nomination by Obama, arguing that since it is an election year, the American people had a say [SCOTUSblog op-ed] in the process by voting in the then-upcoming presidential election. Prior to the election, Samford University law professor William Ross wrote [JURIST op-ed] about the importance of potential Supreme Court nominations during election years.