The petition of the day is:
Issue: Whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
On June 29 at 11:45 a.m. (Pacific), the Marin County Bar Association will host a lunch on this past Term with Rory Little. More information and registration for this event, which will be held at the McInnis Club Restaurant in San Rafael, California, are available here.
Commentary relating to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia comes from the National Constitution Center, which hosted a panel (video; audio also available) on Scalia’s constitutional legacy; and Tony Mauro, who in an op-ed for USA Today notes that Scalia had not made a final decision regarding the disposition of his papers and argues that “the time has arrived for Congress to keep justices from shielding — or torching — documents the public deserves to see.” And in The Advocate, Mark Joseph Stern suggests that, because the “post-Scalia court will likely confront a host of legal questions important to the LGBT community, from antigay ‘religious liberty’ and employment discrimination to trans rights and bathroom access,” it “seems quite likely that Scalia’s successor will hold the key to LGBT equality on a divided court.” Continue reading »
Coverage relating to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, its effect on the Court, and the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to succeed him comes from Hanna Trudo of Politico, who reports on comments by President Barack Obama to news outlets in battleground states. The National Law Review looks at the effect of Scalia’s death on the Fifth Circuit and circuit splits more generally. And Patricia Manson of the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports on an appearance by retired Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Elena Kagan in Chicago; among other things, she notes, Stevens “predicted the vacancy created by Antonin G. Scalia’s death will not be filled until after President Barack Obama leaves the White House.” Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
Issue: Whether individual detectives and an investigator are entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution based on allegations they knew or should have known the criminal suspect had cognitive limitations making his confession to a crime untrustworthy and not appropriately relied upon by law enforcement to support his arrest.
On May 11 at 1 p.m., the State & Local Legal Center will host a discussion on decisions of the Roberts Court that have affected state and local governments. Speakers will include this blog’s Tom Goldstein, Adam Liptak, and David Savage. More information and registration for this webinar are available here.
And on May 19 at 12 p.m., the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies will host a discussion on the legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Speakers will include Stephanos Bibas, Josh Blackman, and Richard Garnett, Noel Francisco will provide a keynote address, and Elizabeth Slattery will host. More information about this event, which will be held at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium in Washington, D.C., is available here.
Yesterday the Court issued orders from its April 29 Conference, adding two cases to its merits docket for next Term. Lyle Denniston covered the orders for this blog, while Mark Walsh covered the grant in Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands for Education Week. And Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed reports that the Justices ordered courts in Alabama to “review whether the process the state uses to sentence someone to death remains constitutional after a ruling from the justices earlier this year that struck down Florida’s similar sentencing process.”
Other coverage related to yesterday’s orders focused on the cases in which the Court denied review. Marina Koren reported for The Atlantic that yesterday the Justices declined to “consider a case from Native American inmates in Alabama prisons who want to wear their hair long in accordance with their religious beliefs and tradition.” Steven Nelson of U.S. News & World Report reported that the Justices also rejected a case involving the phone records of the late “D.C. madam.” Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reported that the Justices “declined a request from shareholders seeking to revive their class action lawsuit against BP claiming the British oil company misrepresented its safety procedures prior to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.” And Daniel Wiessner of Reuters reported that the Justices “rejected a challenge by business groups to Seattle’s law raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour, a move echoed by other locales, in a case focusing on how the ordinance affected local franchises like McDonald’s.” Continue reading »
Although my preview described the question in Ocasio v. United States as a “brain-teaser,” my post-argument review suggested that the Court would give a “simple answer” upholding Samuel Ocasio’s conviction. Today’s opinion confirms the latter view. But with three dissenting Justices plus one concurring Justice on this eight-Justice Court, the fallout from Ocasio may be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent suggests, to “raise more questions than answers” for future federal “official right” extortion prosecutions.
Justice Alito with opinion in Ocasio v. U.S. (Art Lien)
Continue reading »
The Supreme Court, taking up an issue that has puzzled lower courts, agreed on Monday to clarify whether the design that is a part of a “useful article” is original enough to gain its own copyright protection. In the case raising that issue (Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands), the fight is over designs that are part of uniforms or warm-up outfits for cheerleaders, but the potential impact could sweep far more widely, especially in the garment industry.
In a second intellectual property case that the Court accepted for review, the issue is whether the holder of a patent who waits too long to defend its rights loses the option of challenging an alleged infringement. That question came up in the case of SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, involving a dispute over patents for disposable “adult diapers.” Both that case and the cheerleader-uniform controversy will be heard and decided next Term.
The Court also turned aside a challenge to the way that Seattle’s fifteen-dollar minimum-wage guarantee applies to local companies that are affiliated with out-of-state franchise networks. There was, as usual, no explanation for the denial of the case (International Franchise Association v. Seattle).
Continue reading »
On May 5 at 12 p.m., the D.C. Bar will begin a monthly seminar on issues and cases currently before the Court. Speakers for next Thursday’s class, which will address United States v. Texas, include Brianne Gorod and Ilya Shapiro; Amy Howe will serve as moderator. Additional classes will be held of the first Thursday of each month (May 5, June 2, July 7, August 4, September 1, and October 6). More information and registration are available for the in-person presentation and the webinar.