DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday is set to hear a trademark clash between Jack Daniel's and a dog accessory company behind a parody chew toy resembling the distiller's widely recognized black-label whiskey bottle. The dispute pits the whiskey brand's trademark rights against legal protections for creative expression - in this case a send-up by Phoenix-based VIP Products LLC of Jack Daniel's Old No. A 2,300-strong group of authors took the opposite view, saying a win for Jack Daniel's could lead to a "catastrophic chilling effect" over worries that creative expression might spark litigation. The 9th Circuit said the Bad Spaniels toy was an "expressive work" and thus potentially shielded under the First Amendment from Jack Daniel's trademark infringement claim. President Joe Biden's administration supports Jack Daniel's appeal.

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.

☆ U.S. Supreme Court backs deaf student who sued Michigan school district
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-21 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +2 min

WASHINGTON, March 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a deaf student in Michigan to sue his public school district for allegedly failing to provide him adequate classroom instruction, a ruling that bolsters the ability of students with disabilities to remedy shortcomings in their education. The 9-0 ruling authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch revived student Miguel Luna Perez's lawsuit seeking monetary damages from the school system in Sturgis, Michigan, as the justices overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the case. Perez has said the school district assigned him an unqualified classroom aide who did not know sign language, and then misled his parents as to how much progress he was making. After settling an administrative complaint under IDEA with the district promising additional schooling at the Michigan School for the Deaf, Perez filed his lawsuit in federal court under the ADA, seeking compensatory damages. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 dismissed the case, agreeing with the school district that Perez could not bring his lawsuit before first exhausting the administrative procedures under IDEA.

☆ North Carolina urges US Supreme Court to toss major elections case
▼ + stars: | 2023-03-20 | by ( Andrew Chung | ) www.reuters.com time to read: +4 min

WASHINGTON, March 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court should dismiss a major case from North Carolina that could give more power over federal elections to state politicians because the matter is being reconsidered by a lower court, North Carolina said in a filing on Monday, while the Republican lawmakers at the center of the dispute disagreed. The case began as a legal fight over a map drawn by Republican state legislators of North Carolina's 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts - one that a lower court blocked as unlawfully disadvantageous for Democrats. The justices should "dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction" given that the "decisions on review are nonfinal," the state said. The Republican lawmakers had urged the U.S. Supreme Court to embrace a once-marginal legal theory now embraced by many conservatives that would remove any role of state courts and state constitutions in regulating presidential and congressional elections. Since its decision invalidating the map, the state court has undergone a change in its ideological makeup.

[1/2] U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivers remarks during a discussion hosted by the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 12, 2019. A rare meeting of the Supreme Court Bar, comprised of attorneys admitted to practice law before the court, featured speeches from people who worked closely with Ginsburg including U.S. Trump also appointed conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Appointed to the Supreme Court by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1993, she provided key votes in landmark rulings securing equal rights for women, expanding gay rights and safeguarding abortion rights. Ginsburg was the second woman ever named to the court, after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The state Supreme Court blocked the Republican map as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters. The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the dispute in December but has not issued a ruling in the high-profile case. The justices' order on Thursday cited a federal law giving it jurisdiction over final judgments issued by state supreme courts. Members of the state Supreme Court are elected by voters in North Carolina. In their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the North Carolina Republicans contended that the state court usurped the state General Assembly's authority under that provision to regulate federal elections.

Questions posed by the conservative justices during arguments on Tuesday over Biden's debt relief indicated that the conservative-majority court could strike down the plan as an unlawful overreach of executive power. "If Congress can't or won't step up, and the court won't let presidents do so, what are we left with? Its conservative justices already have invoked it to scuttle a pandemic-era residential eviction moratorium, a COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandate for large businesses and federal limits on carbon emissions from power plants. In some instances, like Biden's unilateral effort to extend the eviction moratorium, he took executive action following congressional inaction. "I'm concerned that we're going to have a problem in terms of the federal government's ability to operate," Jackson said.

[1/2] U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks about the student loan forgiveness program from an auditorium on the White House campus in Washington, U.S., October 17, 2022. The program fulfilled Biden's 2020 campaign promise to cancel a portion of the nation's $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt but was criticized by Republicans and others as an overreach of his authority. Biden's administration has said the plan is authorized under a 2003 federal law called the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, or HEROES Act, that allows student loan debt relief during wartime or national emergencies. Beginning in 2020, the administrations of President Donald Trump, a Republican, and Biden, a Democrat, repeatedly paused federal student loan payments and halted interest from accruing, relying upon the HEROES Act. Missouri-based U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey found the states - Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina lacked the legal standing to sue.

[1/2] Television equipment is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court as Justices hear oral arguments on Twitter's appeal to an anti-terror law violation, in Washington, U.S., February 22, 2023. Both lawsuits were brought under a U.S. law that enables Americans to recover damages related to "an act of international terrorism." Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch said the statute focuses liability on aiding a person who engaged in a terrorist act. Islamic State called the attack revenge for Turkish military involvement in Syria. In the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.

[1/2] Television equipment is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court as Justices hear oral arguments on Twitter's appeal to an anti-terror law violation, in Washington, U.S., February 22, 2023. The lower court dismissed that case largely based on Section 230 immunity. In the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Islamic State called the attack revenge for Turkish military involvement in Syria. Twitter in court papers has said that it has terminated more than 1.7 million accounts for violating rules against "threatening or promoting terrorism."

Both lawsuits were brought under a U.S. law that enables Americans to recover damages related to "an act of international terrorism." The lower court dismissed that case largely based on Section 230 immunity. In the Twitter case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Islamic State called the attack revenge for Turkish military involvement in Syria. Twitter in court papers has said that it has terminated more than 1.7 million accounts for violating rules against "threatening or promoting terrorism."

Circuit Court of Appeals relied on another law, called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, that protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users. This case marks the first time the Supreme Court will examine the scope of Section 230. Many websites and social media companies use similar technology to give users relevant content such as job listings, search engine results, songs and movies. Legal experts note that companies could employ other legal defenses if Section 230 protections are eroded. Many conservatives have said voices on the right are censored by social media companies under the guise of content moderation.

[1/2] A man is silhouetted near logos of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and Wikipedia in this photo illustration taken in Sarajevo March 11, 2015. REUTERS/Dado RuvicWASHINGTON, Feb 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a bid by the operator of the popular Wikipedia internet encyclopedia to resurrect its lawsuit against the National Security Agency challenging mass online surveillance. The NSA, part of the Defense Department, is the agency responsible for U.S. cryptographic and communications intelligence and security. The U.S. government has said the NSA's surveillance targeting is authorized by a 2008 amendment to a federal law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Wikimedia compared the interception by the NSA of its communications to the "seizing and searching the patron records of the largest library in the world."

The Supreme Court for the first time in this case is scrutinizing the scope of a much-debated 1996 federal law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users. "These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet," liberal Justice Elena Kagan said of the court's members, eliciting laughter in the courtroom. Kagan and conservative colleague Justice Brett Kavanaugh both suggested Congress might be better suited to adjust legal protections for internet companies if warranted. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether Section 230 should apply given that recommendations are provided by YouTube itself. President Joe Biden's administration urged the Supreme Court to revive the lawsuit by Nohemi Gonzalez's family.

The lawsuit argued that YouTube's actions provided "material support" to Islamic State. Critics including Democratic President Joe Biden and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump have said Section 230 needs reform in light of the actions of social media companies in the decades since its enactment. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, a lawyer representing the Gonzalez family, said social media companies, through automated and human means, can prevent militant groups from using their services. "There should be zero tolerance for terrorism on social media. Terror organizations are using social media as a tool that they never had before - and cannot do without."

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 frees platforms from legal responsibility for content posted online by their users. In a major case to be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the nine justices will address the scope of Section 230 for the first time. A ruling against the company could create a "litigation minefield," Google told the justices in a brief. Some have targeted the way platforms monetize content, place advertisements or moderate content by removing or not removing certain material. A California appeals court dismissed the lawsuit, citing Section 230, because it sought to hold Twitter liable for content Murphy created.

The Justice Department, in a Feb. 7 filing, told the Supreme Court: "The anticipated end of the public health emergency on May 11, and the resulting expiration of the operative Title 42 order, would render this case moot." The Supreme Court in December left in place the Title 42 policy, granting in a 5-4 vote the request by Republican state attorneys general to put on hold U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan's November decision invalidating the emergency public health order. Title 42 was first implemented in March 2020 under Trump, a Republican, when the COVID-19 pandemic began. Biden, a Democrat, kept Title 42 in place after taking office in January 2021 despite fierce criticism from within his own party. Biden's administration sought to lift the policy after U.S. health authorities said last year it was no longer needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

Jan 23 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday asked President Joe Biden's administration to weigh in on whether it should review Republican-backed laws in Texas and Florida that would undercut efforts by major social media companies to curb content deemed objectionable on their platforms, actions the states call impermissible censorship. Supporters of the laws have argued that social media platforms have silenced conservative voices while advocates for the judicious use of curbing content have argued for the need to stop misinformation and advocacy for extremist causes. Florida is seeking to revive its law after a lower court ruled largely against it, while the industry groups are appealing a separate lower court decision upholding the Texas law, which the Supreme Court had blocked at an earlier stage of the case. The Texas law forbids social media companies with at least 50 million monthly active users from acting to "censor" users based on "viewpoint." Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 upheld the Texas law, concluding that it "chills no speech whatsoever.

[1/7] Abortion rights campaigners participate in a demonstration following the leaked Supreme Court opinion suggesting the possibility of overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, in Washington, U.S., May 14, 2022. The report detailed an eight-month investigation conducted by Supreme Court marshal Gail Curley at the direction of Chief Justice John Roberts. The report did not identify a specific source of the leak, noting that none of the 97 court employees interviewed by investigators confessed to the disclosure. It was critical of some of the court's internal security protocols, and made clear that investigators would continue to pursue any new leads. "In time, continued investigation and analysis may produce additional leads that could identify the source of the disclosure," the report stated.

Others were adopted in July after the Supreme Court the prior month struck down New York's limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home in a landmark ruling expanding gun rights. New York officials have said the new gun restrictions, which face numerous legal challenges in lower courts, are needed to protect public safety. The Supreme Court has broadened gun rights in three key rulings since 2008. Alito wrote that the New York law at issue "presents novel and serious questions" under the U.S. Constitution's provisions on gun rights and free speech. Nine individuals who sell firearms in upstate New York and a gun collectors association sued state officials in federal court to challenge a series of laws regulating purchases.

WASHINGTON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Tuesday to hear arguments over a bid by Turkey's state-owned lender Halkbank (HALKB.IS) to avoid criminal charges in the United States for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions. The justices are weighing Halkbank's appeal of a lower court's ruling in favor of the U.S. government that allowed the prosecution of the bank to proceed. The case tests Halkbank's contention that it is shielded from prosecution because, as an entity majority owned by the Turkish government, it has sovereign immunity. Halkbank's case has complicated U.S.-Turkish relations, with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan calling the 2019 American charges against the bank an "unlawful, ugly" step. They also said Halkbank helped Iran secretly transfer $20 billion of restricted funds, with at least $1 billion laundered through the U.S. financial system.

NEW YORK, Jan 11 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed New York to enforce a Democratic-backed gun control law adopted after the justices last year struck down the state's limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home in a landmark ruling that expanded gun rights. Circuit Court of Appeals in December put that decision on hold while the state pursues an appeal. Wednesday's action may not be the last time the Supreme Court addresses New York's new gun law. New York state Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, praised the court's decision to keep the law in effect. Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the Concealed Carry Improvement Act on July 1, a week after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling against a New York concealed carry permit restriction.

WASHINGTON, Jan 10 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday wrestled with a labor dispute that could narrow federal protections for unions by making it easier for employers to sue over strikes that result in damage to company property. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has leaned toward curbing the power of labor unions in rulings in recent years. 174, representing the company's truck drivers, in state court accusing the union of intentional property destruction during the strike. Glacier Northwest urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that federal preemption does not bar claims made under state law involving intentional destruction of an employer's property. While the U.S. Supreme Court has found that labor unions can be sued in state court for violent or threatening conduct, the union argued, this narrow exception should not be expanded to permit property damage claims brought under state law.

The law targets fraud and abuse, such as bribery, in federal healthcare programs including Medicare, which provides coverage for the elderly and disabled. Pfizer contends the government's interpretation of the law was blocking access to critical medical care. New York-based Pfizer's medication, also known as tafamidis, treats a rare heart condition known as transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy that can lead to progressive heart failure. Given the drug's high price, patients would need to bear yearly co-payments of roughly $13,000, with Medicare covering the rest. Pfizer's proposal sought to assist "middle-income" patients who do not qualify for low-income co-pay support but might still be deterred by its cost.

Sotomayor, who has dissented in major cases including the abortion decision as the court's 6-3 conservative majority has become increasingly assertive, described herself as "shell-shocked" and "deeply sad" after that term ended in June. The court's current term, which began in October, could be just as consequential as its previous one. In October, conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Dobbs opinion, warned against questioning the court's integrity. At Wednesday's conference, Chemerinsky noted that he had never before seen his law students so discouraged about the Supreme Court. Sotomayor, appointed to the court by Democratic former President Barack Obama in 2009, expressed optimism that the direction of the court will change in the future.

Search resuls for: "Andrew Chung"

25 mentions found