DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today,” Roberts wrote. During oral arguments, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stressed the unique interests of the military and argued that race-based admissions programs further the nation’s compelling interest of diversity. Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the decision will still not end the legal fight over college admissions. The Supreme Court stepped in to consider the case before it was heard by a federal appeals court.

Persons: John Roberts, “, ” Roberts, Clarence Thomas, ”, ” Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, ” Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Martin Luther King, Jackson, “ ‘, Roberts, Elizabeth Prelogar, ” Jackson, Kevin McCarthy, Republican Sen, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, ” Trump, Mike Pence, ” Pence, Chuck Schumer, Laura Coates, Steve Vladeck, ” Vladeck, ” Long, SSFA, Loretta C, Biggs, ” Biggs, SFFA, Cameron T, Norris, Harvard “, Prelogar, Lewis F, Powell Jr Organizations: CNN, Harvard, University of North, UNC, Supreme, GOP, Republican, America, Truth, New York Democrat, University of Texas School of Law, Asian, Fair, Court, Middle, Middle District of, University, US, University of California, Bakke Locations: University of North Carolina, Independence, United States, Lower, Middle District, Middle District of North Carolina

☆ Supreme Court Puts First Amendment Limits on Laws Banning Online Threats
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-27 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the First Amendment imposes limits on laws that make it a crime to issue threats on the internet, requiring prosecutors to prove that defendants had acted recklessly in causing emotional harm. Writing for five justices in the 7-to-2 decision, Justice Elena Kagan took a middle path. “The state must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence,” she wrote. “The state need not prove any more demanding form of subjective intent to threaten another.”Justice Kagan acknowledged that “true threats,” like libel, incitement, obscenity and fighting words, are not protected by the First Amendment. But she said the risk of chilling protected speech warranted imposing an added burden on prosecutors.

Persons: Elena Kagan, ”, ” Justice Kagan, “

☆ Opinion | Andy Warhol and ‘Fair Use’ in Art
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-27 | by ( ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

To the Editor:In “The Supreme Court Is Wrong About Andy Warhol” (Opinion guest essay, June 10), Richard Meyer gets to the truth about the artist in the last sentence: “His art, like all good art, was not created to abide by the law.”But we all live under law, including copyright law. According to Professor Meyer, “Had [Warhol] known about fair use, the artist likely would have been little concerned with legal repercussions.” Well, Warhol and his lawyers most likely knew the elements of the “fair use” defense because while they were not codified until 1976, those principles date back to Judge Joseph Story’s historic 1841 opinion in Folsom v. Marsh. Warhol may be a “towering figure in modern art,” as Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent last month in Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, but the court, in a 7-to-2 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, fairly concluded that the work of the photographer Lynn Goldsmith was entitled to copyright protection “even against famous artists.”Keith DanishLeonia, N.J. The writer is a retired attorney who specialized in intellectual property law.

Persons: Andy Warhol ”, Richard Meyer, Meyer, “, Warhol, Joseph Story’s, . Marsh, Elena Kagan, Goldsmith, Sonia Sotomayor, Lynn Goldsmith, ” Keith Danish Leonia Organizations: Warhol Foundation Locations: Folsom, ., N.J

He was found guilty in a 2017 trial of stalking Whalen and sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison as he pursued his First Amendment appeal. The Colorado stalking law did not require proof of a speaker's subjective intent to intimidate. Whalen has described the messages from Counterman, which came to her over a two-year span beginning in 2014, as life-threatening and life-altering. Among Counterman's communications to Whalen were messages that read: "Was that you in the white Jeep?" His appeal was rejected by the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Persons: Elena Kagan, Billy Counterman's, Coles Whalen, Kagan, John Elwood, Elwood, Counterman, messaged Whalen, Whalen, Joe Biden's, John Kruzel, Will Dunham Organizations: U.S, Supreme, Counterman, Facebook, Colorado, of Appeals, Thomson Locations: Colorado, Denver, Colorado's

The 8-1 ruling, written by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, upheld a lower court's decision to allow the Justice Department to toss a lawsuit against a UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH.N) unit by a former employee named Jesse Polansky who accused it of wrongdoing. Polansky had sought to bar the department from dismissing whistleblower lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act in instances in which the government initially declined to exercise its right to take over the cases. Whistleblower cases brought under the False Claims Act resulted in $48.2 billion in recoveries from 1987 to 2021, according to Justice Department data. The Justice Department sought dismissal of Polansky's lawsuit in 2019, citing concerns including the "tremendous" burden of requests for the government to produce documents. The Supreme Court on June 1 ruled in another whistleblowers case involving the False Claims Act.

Persons: Department's, Elena Kagan, Jesse Polansky, Polansky, Polansky's, Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Donald Trump's, Nate Raymond, John Kruzel, Will Dunham Organizations: U.S, Supreme, Justice Department, Circuit, Health Resources, Conservative, Department, U.S . Chamber, Commerce, Republican, The Justice, Thomson Locations: Philadelphia, Boston, Washington

The decision is likely to force companies to toe a more careful line when making commercial products that mimic other brands for the sake of parody, legal experts said. The Rogers test is "not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods - in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark," Justice Elena Kagan wrote. Other experts said the decision leaves space for the First Amendment to apply to parody products. "The likelihood of confusion analysis will still take the challenged product's funny message into account," Brannen said. (This story has been refiled to change dateline to June 12)Reporting by Blake Brittain in WashingtonOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Persons: Brown, Forman, Jack Daniel's, Rogers, infringer, Elena Kagan, Kagan, Megan Bannigan, Plimpton, Bannigan, VIP, Doug Masters, Loeb & Loeb, Masters, Alexandra Roberts, Roberts, Elizabeth Brannen, Maher, Brannen, Blake Brittain Organizations: U.S, Supreme Court, Constitution, VIP Products, MCA Records, Mattel, Debevoise, Loeb &, Northeastern University, Stris, Thomson Locations: Danish, Washington

☆ Chief Justice John Roberts listed two vacation homes on two different continents in his real estate income disclosures while Elena Kagan listed a parking spot in DC
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-11 | by ( Kelly Mclaughlin | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +2 min

Chief Justice Roberts' report revealed he rented out properties in Ireland and Maine. A report for Justice Elena Kagan revealed she rented out a parking spot in Washington, DC. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan both earned extra income by renting out properties — though the properties are vastly different. According to Roberts' report, shared online by SCOTUSblog, Roberts rented out cottages in Ireland's Limerick County and Maine's Knox County. Kagan, meanwhile, rented out a parking space at a building in Washington, DC, according to her report, also shared by SCOTUSblog.

Persons: Justice Roberts, Elena Kagan, —, John Roberts, Roberts, Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Thomas, Alito, Harlan Crow Organizations: Supreme, Service, SCOTUSblog, NPR Locations: Ireland, Maine, Washington ,, Ireland's Limerick County, Maine's Knox County, Washington , DC, New York

☆ Supreme Court rules for Jack Daniel’s in ‘poop-themed’ dog toy trademark fight
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-08 | by ( Lawrence Hurley | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +2 min

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Jack Daniel's in a trademark fight over "poop-themed" dog toys that resemble the company's famous whiskey bottles. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, said that VIP's alleged infringement of the Jack Daniel's trademark "falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection." 7" label on Jack Daniel's bottles. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 ruled in favor of VIP Products, saying its toys are protected under the First Amendment, which prompted Jack Daniel's to seek further review from the Supreme Court. Various companies, including Nike , Campbell Soup and American Apparel, filed briefs backing Jack Daniel's, saying the appeals court's interpretation of the law threatened trademark protections that shield the value of iconic brands.

Persons: Jack Daniel's, Elena Kagan, Campbell Soup Organizations: VIP Products, U.S, Circuit, Nike, Apparel, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Jack Daniel's Properties Inc is owned by Louisville, Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp (BFb.N). The dispute pitted the whiskey brand's trademark rights against legal protections for creative expression - in this case a send-up by Phoenix-based VIP Products of Jack Daniel's Old No. Jack Daniel's spokesperson Svend Jansen said the company was pleased with the decision. "Jack Daniel's is a brand recognized for quality and craftsmanship, and when friends around the world see the label, they know it stands for something they can count on. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 ruled in favor of VIP Products on two grounds.

Persons: Jack, Read, Jack Daniel's, Elena Kagan, Brown, Kagan, Svend Jansen, Jansen, Ginger Rogers, Ginger, Fred, Federico Fellini, Fred Astaire, Rogers, infringer, Joe Biden's, John Kruzel, Andrew Chung, Will Dunham Organizations: U.S, Supreme, VIP Products, Inc, Forman Corp, VIP, Rogers, New, Circuit, Appeals, Hollywood, Thomson Locations: Washington, WASHINGTON, Louisville , Kentucky, Phoenix, Tennessee, New York, San Francisco

☆ Supreme Court Rules Against Dog Toy Resembling Liquor Bottle
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-08 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the First Amendment did not protect a chew toy for dogs resembling a bottle of Jack Daniel’s from a lawsuit claiming trademark infringement. The toy, the Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker, has the shape and other distinctive features of a bottle of Jack Daniel’s but with, as an appeals court judge put it, “lighthearted, dog-related alterations.”The words “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” on the bottle are replaced on the toy by “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee carpet.” Where Jack Daniel’s says its product is 40 percent alcohol by volume, Bad Spaniels’ is said to be “43 percent poo.”A tag attached to the toy says it is “not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a unanimous court, seemed amused by the dispute. “This case is about dog toys and whiskey,” she wrote, “two items seldom appearing in the same sentence.”

Persons: Jack Daniel’s, ’, Jack Daniel Distillery, Elena Kagan, ” Organizations: Jack, ” Locations: Tennessee

☆ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the rare lone dissenter in a union strike ruling that involved drivers walking off the job with trucks full of wet concrete
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-02 | by ( Lauren Steussy | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

The Supreme Court struck down a ruling over what union members can reasonably do during a strike. A local teamsters union in Washington walked off the job in 2017 with trucks full of wet concrete. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenter, saying the decision jeopardizes union rights. The solo dissent was a first for the outspoken Biden-appointed justice, who wrote that the ruling would "erode the right to strike." "Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master," Jackson wrote.

Persons: Ketanji Brown Jackson, —, Biden, Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Harlan Crow, Samuel Alito, haven't shied, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Andy Warhol, Kagan Organizations: teamsters, Service, Washington Supreme, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Teamsters, Workers, GOP Locations: Washington, Northwest

☆ In pointed dissent, Justice Kagan accuses fellow liberal Justice Sotomayor of hypocrisy in Warhol decision, says the court is 'trying too hard' and anti-artist ruling will 'stifle creativity' and 'mak
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-21 | by ( Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +5 min

In her dissent against the 7-2 majority, Justice Kagan accused her colleagues of hypocrisy. Lynn Goldsmith's photograph of Prince; Andy Warhol's silkscreen print of Prince, featured on the cover of a Condé Nast magazine. Quoting the 1965 film "The Sound of Music," Kagan wrote: "'Nothing comes from nothing,' the dissent observes, 'nothing ever could.' "The majority claims not to be embarrassed by this embarrassing fact because the specific reference was to his Soup Cans, rather than his celebrity images," Kagan wrote. "It will stifle creativity of every sort," Kagan wrote.

☆ Supreme Court rules against Andy Warhol Foundation in copyright case over Prince photo
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-18 | by ( Dan Mangan | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against the Andy Warhol Foundation in a copyright dispute over the use of a celebrity photographer's image of the musician Prince for artwork created by Warhol. Goldsmith had sued the Warhol Foundation for copyright infringement over its licensing of an image called "Orange Prince" to Conde Naste, the parent company of Vanity Fair magazine, in 2016. Orange Prince is one of 16 Warhol silkscreens based on her photo, which Goldsmith only became aware of in 2016. Although a federal district court rule in the Warhol Foundation's favor, that ruling was overturned by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. "Lynn Goldsmith's original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists," the court said in the majority opinion. "

☆ Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol in Copyright Case
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-18 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: 1 min

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Andy Warhol was not entitled to draw on a prominent photographer’s portrait of Prince for a series of images of the musician, limiting the scope of the fair-use defense to copyright infringement in the realm of visual art. The vote was 7 to 2. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the majority, said the photographer’s “original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists.”In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., wrote that the decision “will stifle creativity of every sort.”“It will impede new art and music and literature,” she wrote. “It will thwart the expression of new ideas and the attainment of new knowledge. It will make our world poorer.”

☆ Ron Johnson insists he won't pocket $8.4 million from donors. But thanks to Ted Cruz, he could legally do exactly that.
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-17 | by ( Bryan Metzger | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +8 min

That's due to a Supreme Court case won last year by Ted Cruz, who defended Johnson repaying himself. In October quarterly filings, Johnson's campaign declared that it was reinstating $8.4 million in loans, citing Ted Cruz vs. FEC. Furthermore, the door is now open for other self-funding candidates to demand payback of campaign loans that they had previously forgiven. And prior to Johnson telling Insider that he wouldn't seek a loan repayment, Cruz vociferously defended the hypothetical repayment. "It is perfectly reasonable that Ron Johnson, after 10 years of making an interest-free loan to the American people, can pay back his own money," Cruz added.

☆ Justice Elena Kagan was worried about the ethics of accepting bagels from friends, while Clarence Thomas was enjoying expensive vacations paid for by a GOP megadonor: report
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-11 | by ( Joshua Zitser | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan once turned down a care package of bagels and lox, per Forward. She was concerned she could be violating the court's ethics rules for accepting gifts, friends said. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was accepting lavish holidays from a GOP megadonor. And unlike the rest of the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court is not bound by a code of conduct. The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

☆ A law school named after the late Antonin Scalia is a haven for conservative Supreme Court justices to enjoy lavish treatment, New York Times reports
▼ + stars: | 2023-05-01 | by ( Hannah Getahun | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

Antonin Scalia Law School at the Virginia-based George Mason University was renamed in 2016. The renaming was part of a plan to help its reputation by getting closer to the Supreme Court. Justices were given notable benefits to teach there, emails obtained by The New York Times reveal. This desire to keep Supreme Court leadership on their roster even superseded scandals the judges faced. The Antonin Scalia Law School and a spokesperson for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

[1/2] The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., April 6, 2023. Two laws, the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Securities Exchange Act, funnel judicial review of adverse agency orders to federal appeals courts only after those orders become final. The Supreme Court's conservative justices have signaled wariness toward expansive federal regulatory power and the previously recognized duty of judges, under Supreme Court precedent, to give deference to that authority. Federal agencies have had their powers curtailed in recent Supreme Court rulings. Axon sued the FTC in 2020 in federal court in Arizona following an investigation by the agency into its 2018 acquisition of Vievu, a rival body-camera provider.

☆ Supreme Court makes it easier to bring constitutional challenges to federal agencies
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-14 | by ( Ariane De Vogue | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +1 min

CNN —The Supreme Court held Friday that a party involved in a dispute with the Federal Trade Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission does not have to wait until a final determination in the proceeding has been issued before bringing a constitutional challenge to the agency’s structure in federal court. The court’s decision means that targets of investigative actions do not have to wait long periods of time before lodging constitutional challenges to the proceedings that could ultimately weaken the agency. Although the court’s opinion could weaken the power of federal agencies, liberal justices likely signed onto the opinion because it will only apply to a small subset of cases. “The question presented is whether the district courts have jurisdiction to hear those suits — and so to resolve the parties’ constitutional challenges to the Commission’ structure,” Kagan wrote. The ordinary statutory review scheme does not preclude a district court from entertaining these extraordinary claims.”

☆ Thousands of student-loan borrowers are facing 'obvious harm' if the Supreme Court agrees to halt the debt relief they already won in court, Biden's Education Department says
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-12 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

The Education Department pushed back on a lawsuit to halt student-debt relief for borrowers who said they were defrauded. A federal judge signed off on a settlement that would give those borrowers $6 billion in debt relief. The Education Department agreed to the settlement last summer, and in November, a federal judge signed off on $6 billion in debt relief for 200,000 borrowers. On Wednesday, the Education Department responded to the schools' appeal, and as expected, it told the Supreme Court that staying the relief will cause "obvious harm" for impacted borrowers and the department itself. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case aiming to block that broader relief in February.

☆ Thomas revelation fits a broader pattern of nondisclosure
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-12 | by ( Joan Biskupic | ) edition.cnn.com time to read: +7 min

Washington CNN —The recent revelations of lavish gifts and travel that a Republican megadonor showered on Justice Clarence Thomas reflect a larger Supreme Court culture of nondisclosure, little explanation, and no comment. The incident reflects the broader lack of accountability at the high court regarding off-bench behavior. Justices regularly brush aside reporters’ queries for specifics on travel and gifts, book advances and other extracurricular activities. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin made another such plea to Roberts this week as he also urged the chief justice to open an investigation into Thomas’ conduct. Chief justice on the spotRoberts, who became chief justice in 2005, has continually described the high court as beyond the realm of politics and worthy of public trust.

☆ 20 GOP-led states are asking the Supreme Court to halt Biden's latest student-debt cancellation for 200,000 borrowers, backing a request from 3 schools accused of defrauding their students
▼ + stars: | 2023-04-11 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

A federal judge ruled that 200,000 borrowers can move forward with relief in a borrower defense settlement. Last month, three schools mentioned in the settlement appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 20 GOP-led states filed an amicus brief supporting the schools, arguing Biden doesn't have authority to carry out this relief. Unlawful delay of debt relief results in clear monetary harm." The Education Department has until Wednesday to file a response to the three schools' lawsuit, which currently sits with Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan.

Jack Daniel's Properties Inc is owned by Louisville, Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp (BFb.N). "I'm concerned about the First Amendment implications of your position," conservative Justice Samuel Alito told an attorney for Jack Daniel's, referring to the constitutional provision enshrining free-speech protections. "Could any reasonable person think that Jack Daniel's had approved this use of the mark?" Jack Daniel's also contested a finding by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. "This is a standard commercial product," Kagan told a lawyer for VIP Products, Bennett Cooper.

☆ The Supreme Court justices deciding whether to axe Biden's student loan relief program paid an average of $42,539 to go to college. Today, they'd have to pay around $320,531.
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-01 | by ( Sarah Al-Arshani | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +8 min

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Biden's student debt relief on Tuesday. The cost of getting an undergraduate degree was significantly cheaper when they graduated than now. When Roberts graduated in 1979, it cost $21,400; in 1992 when Jackson earned her undergraduate degree, it would have cost $75,360. When Roberts graduated in 1979, it cost $21,400; in 1992 when Jackson earned her undergraduate degree, it would have cost $75,360. Student loan borrowers gathered at the Supreme Court today to tell the court that student loan relief is legal on January 2, 2023.

☆ Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan is in jeopardy. Here are 4 major takeaways from the Supreme Court's oral arguments.
▼ + stars: | 2023-02-28 | by ( Ayelet Sheffey | Oma Seddiq | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +11 min

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Biden's student-debt relief on Tuesday. The nation's highest court heard more than four hours of oral arguments in two high-profile cases that reviewed Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in debt for federal borrowers, which lower courts temporarily paused in November. "We're talking about half a trillion dollars and 43 million Americans," Chief Justice John Roberts said, referring to the estimated costs of Biden's plan and the number of affected borrowers. Justice Elena Kagan raised a hypothetical national emergency of an earthquake and the education secretary responded by deciding to cancel student loans for those harmed. Still, even if Barrett and the court's three liberals find that the states and borrowers lack standing, they would need another conservative vote to uphold Biden's debt relief.

Search resuls for: "Justice Elena Kagan"

25 mentions found