DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Justice Sonia Sotomayor says Supreme Court is 'entrenching racial inequality in education' by striking down affirmative action
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-29 | by ( Bryan Metzger | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

The Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in higher education on Thursday. In her 68-page dissent, she argued that the court is "entrenching racial inequality in education." In striking down affirmative action, Sotomayor argued, the court is cementing "a superficial rule of colorblindness" in an "endemically segregated society." She goes on to argue that the court's decision is "grounded in the illusion that racial inequality was a problem of a different generation." "Entrenched racial inequality remains a reality today," wrote Sotomayor.

Persons: Sonia Sotomayor, —, Sonia Sotomayor —, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson —, Sotomayor, Robert Blum, Donald Trump Organizations: Service, United States Supreme, of Education, Fair, Harvard University, University of North Locations: America, Brown, University of North Carolina

admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the equal protection clause,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. The court had repeatedly upheld similar admissions programs, most recently in 2016, saying that race could be used as one factor among many in evaluating applicants. The university responded that its admissions policies fostered educational diversity and were lawful under longstanding Supreme Court precedents. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that courts must give universities substantial but not total leeway in devising their admissions programs. The Texas decision essentially reaffirmed Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision in which the Supreme Court endorsed holistic admissions programs, saying it was permissible to consider race to achieve educational diversity.

Persons: “, John G, Roberts, ”, Sonia Sotomayor, Edward Blum, Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan, Justice Anthony M, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G, Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kennedy, Brett M, Kavanaugh, Ginsburg, Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Breyer, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Jackson, Grutter, Bollinger, Sandra Day O’Connor, Clarence Thomas Organizations: Harvard, University of North, Civil, Asian, Fair, University of Texas Locations: University of North Carolina, North Carolina, Austin, Texas

“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

☆ 'A tragedy for us all': Supreme Court Justice Jackson blasts majority's affirmative action ruling
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-29 | by ( Kevin Breuninger | ) www.cnbc.com time to read: +4 min

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson excoriated her colleagues who voted to strike down race-conscious college admissions policies, accusing the majority of "turning back the clock" on affirmative action. "With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces 'colorblindness for all' by legal fiat," Jackson wrote in a thundering dissent to the major court ruling Thursday. By all accounts, they are still stark," Jackson wrote. But if that is its motivation, the majority proceeds in vain," the justice wrote. Thursday's ruling dealt with two separate cases related to affirmative action policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Persons: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Bidens, Jackson, Joe Biden, Thursday's, Sonia Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, John Roberts, Roberts Organizations: Chamber, U.S, Capitol, Supreme, Harvard University, University of North, Harvard, Harvard's, UNC, Constitution Locations: Joe Bidens State, University of North Carolina

PinnedThe Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unlawful, curtailing affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation, a policy that has long been a pillar of higher education. The university responded that its admissions policies fostered educational diversity and were lawful under longstanding Supreme Court precedents. Seven years later, only one member of the majority in the Texas case, Justice Sotomayor, remains on the court. Justice Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case, having served on one of its governing boards. The Texas decision essentially reaffirmed Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision in which the Supreme Court endorsed holistic admissions programs, saying it was permissible to consider race to achieve educational diversity.

Persons: Edward Blum, Antonin Scalia, Elena Kagan, Justice Anthony M, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G, Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kennedy, Brett M, Kavanaugh, Ginsburg, Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Breyer, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Jackson, Grutter, Bollinger, Sandra Day O’Connor Organizations: Harvard, University of North, Civil, Asian, Fair, University of Texas Locations: University of North Carolina, North Carolina, Austin, Texas

[1/3] Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson listens to U.S. According to legal scholar Adam Feldman, who tracks court data, Jackson spoke more during oral arguments than any of the other current justices during their first terms. "She's just showed up from day one," said Terry Maroney, a Vanderbilt Law School professor who studies judicial decision-making and behavior. "She knows what she's doing, she's not shy, she's posing uncomfortable hypotheticals - and she's not afraid to do those things even if it's causing discomfort." Last year, rulings powered by the conservative justices ended recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and widened gun rights.

Persons: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Frantz, Jackson, Lorie Smith, Smith, Santa Claus, Kristen Waggoner, Joe Biden, Adam Feldman, She's, Terry Maroney, she's, Stephen Breyer, Kent Greenfield, Greenfield, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Roman Martinez, John Roberts, Jackson's, Neil Gorsuch, Martinez, " Maroney, Andrew Chung, John Kruzel, Will Dunham Organizations: U.S . Senate, U.S, Supreme, Capitol, REUTERS, WASHINGTON, Democratic, Vanderbilt Law, Environmental Protection Agency, Boston College, Thomson Locations: Washington , U.S, Colorado, United States, California, New York, Washington

☆ 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, “

☆ Supreme Court Allows Unusual Pennsylvania Law on Corporate Suits
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-27 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law on Tuesday that requires corporations to consent to being sued in its courts — by anyone, for conduct anywhere — as a condition for doing business in the state. Only Pennsylvania has such a law. But the ruling may pave the way for other states to enact similar ones, giving injured consumers, workers and others more choices of where to sue and subjecting corporations to suits in courts they may view as hostile to business. The Supreme Court was split 5 to 4, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing for the majority. In ruling against the corporation at the center of the case, Norfolk Southern, Justice Gorsuch rejected its argument that it was entitled “to a more favorable rule, one shielding it from suits even its employees must answer” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Persons: Neil M, Justice Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, John G, Roberts Jr, Elena Kagan, Brett M, Kavanaugh, ” Organizations: Chief Locations: Pennsylvania, Norfolk Southern

☆ 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

The North Carolina controversy arose after the state Supreme Court struck down the state’s 2022 congressional map as an illegal partisan gerrymander, replacing it with court drawn maps that favored Democrats. Reggie Weaver, at podium, speaks outside the Legislative Building in Raleigh, North Carolina, Feb. 15, 2022, about a partisan gerrymandering ruling by the North Carolina Supreme Court. Gary D. Robertson/APAfter the state high court ruled, North Carolina Republican lawmakers appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the state Supreme Court had exceeded its authority. After the last election, the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped its majority to Republican. With the US Supreme Court rejecting the lawmakers’ theory that state courts could not police federal election rules, lawyers for the legislature’s opponents celebrated Tuesday’s ruling.

Persons: Donald Trump, John Roberts, ” Roberts, Roberts, ”, “, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Barack Obama, ” Obama, Reggie Weaver, Gary D, Robertson, Tuesday’s, Neal Katyal, Today’s, court’s, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, ” Thomas, Gorsuch, Thomas, –, Jessica Ring Amunson, Sam Hirsch, Jenner, Hilary Harris Klein – Organizations: CNN, North Carolina, Independent, Chief, Federal, North Carolina Supreme, AP, North, North Carolina Republican, Supreme, North Carolina Supreme Court, Republican, US, Block, Southern Coalition for Social Justice Locations: North Carolina, Federal, Raleigh , North Carolina, “

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

☆ SCOTUS just killed a fringe conservative legal theory that could have upended national elections
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-27 | by ( Brent D. Griffiths | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +4 min

State legislatures will continue to be checked by state courts. Then-President Donald Trump and his allies helped elevate the once-fringe election theory in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. In effect, it meant that state legislatures could nullify their own state's presidential election results, disenfranchising potentially millions of Americans in the process. Roberts said that the high court's decision does not mean that state supreme courts have "free rein" in ruling on election laws. "We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections," he concluded.

Persons: John Roberts, Roberts, —, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump, Michael Luttig, Luttig, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Thomas, Moore, Harper, Harper I Organizations: Service, Trump, Biden, North Carolina, North, North Carolina Constitution Locations: North Carolina

☆ In a scathing dissent, Neil Gorsuch compared the Navajo Nation's plight to the experience of 'any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles'
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-22 | by ( Sonam Sheth | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +3 min

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote an impassioned dissent comparing the plight of the Navajos to the experience of "any American who has spent time at the Department of Motor Vehicles." The high court ruled 5-4 in Arizona v. Navajo Nation on Thursday that under an 1868 treaty, the US is not required secure water for the Navajo Nation. But Gorsuch wrote in his dissent that the majority "rejects a request the Navajo Nation never made." Gorsuch wrote, however, that "the relief the Tribe seeks is far more modest." And at 26 pages, his dissent in Arizona v. Navajo Nation was twice as long as the majority opinion.

Persons: Neil Gorsuch, —, Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson — Organizations: Navajo Nation, Department of Motor Vehicles, Service, Supreme Locations: Navajo, Arizona v, United States, Colorado

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

☆ Opinion | If the Supreme Court Won’t Fix Its Ethics Mess, Congress Should
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-12 | by ( Erwin Chemerinsky | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +2 min

Last month, when the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on whether to impose an ethics code on the court, some of the Republican senators on the committee decried the effort as political. Liberals and conservatives should want a Supreme Court that is above reproach. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Blumenthal, along with other Democrats, have introduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act. Among other things, it would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct within 180 days of the bill’s enactment. It also would create a transparent process for the public to submit ethics complaints against justices, to be reviewed by a random panel of chief judges.

Persons: Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Antonin Scalia, Neil Gorsuch, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Blumenthal Organizations: Bloomberg Law, Republican

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 — just barely — that racial gerrymandering still violates voting rights
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-08 | by ( John Cook | Insider Staff | ) www.businessinsider.com time to read: +2 min

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that Alabama violated a ban on racial gerrymandering. The decision comes as a surprise to court watchers who expected the court to gut the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts, who often rules against voting rights, wrote the majority opinion. The decision comes as a surprise to many court watchers, who expected the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act entirely. Roberts, who is often viewed as the most moderate justice appointed by a Republican president, has historically chipped away at voting protections previously enshrined by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Persons: John Roberts, —, Brett Kavanaugh, Alabama hasn't, Roberts, Kavanaugh —, Donald Trump —, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson Organizations: Service, Alabama, Black voters, Republican Locations: Alabama

The lower court ordered Alabama to configure a second House district where Black voters could hold a majority or close to it. Conservative states and groups had previously succeeded in prodding the Supreme Court to limit the Voting Rights Act's scope. In the ruling on Thursday, two consolidated cases before the Supreme Court involved challenges brought by Black voters and advocacy groups accusing the state of violating Section 2. Alabama then appealed to the Supreme Court. In a major 2019 ruling, the Supreme Court barred federal judges from curbing the practice, known as partisan gerrymandering.

Persons: Michael A, McCoy, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Roberts, Abha Khanna, Khanna, Joe Biden's, John Kruzel, Andrew Chung, Will Dunham Organizations: Selma Fire, REUTERS, WASHINGTON, U.S, Supreme, Black, Republican, Supreme Court, . House, Conservative, Republicans, U.S . House, Democratic, Thomson Locations: Selma, Selma , Alabama, U.S, Alabama, Black, Arizona, Constitution's, Washington

☆ 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

☆ Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters’ Power
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-08 | by ( Adam Liptak | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court, in a surprise decision, ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by drawing a congressional voting map with a single district in which they made up a majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 ruling. He was joined by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Voting rights advocates had feared the decision would undermine the Voting Rights Act, which instead appeared to emerge unscathed. It simply holds that a faithful application of our precedents and a fair reading of the record before us do not bear them out here.”

Persons: John G, Roberts, Brett M, Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, ” Locations: Alabama

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

☆ Opinion | There Is One Group the Roberts Court Really Doesn’t Like
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-06 | by ( Jamelle Bouie | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +2 min

Glacier’s non-unionized workers were able to remove the concrete before the trucks were significantly damaged, but the company sued the Teamsters in state court anyway for damages relating to lost revenue from the wrecked concrete. The Washington State Supreme Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the dispute was “pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act.”The Supreme Court took Glacier’s appeal. Under Garmon, employers must first receive a favorable ruling from the National Labor Relations Board if they want to sue a union for striking in state court. Tossing Garmon would bring labor law much closer to its pre-N.L.R.A. “They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the N.L.R.A.

Persons: Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Ketanji Brown Jackson, ”, “ Organizations: Teamsters, Washington, Court, National Labor Relations, Washington State, National Labor Relations Board, “ Workers Locations: Washington, San Diego

☆ Opinion | The Supreme Court Has Earned a Little Contempt
▼ + stars: | 2023-06-02 | by ( Josh Chafetz | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +2 min

In justifying this doctrine, the justices have raised the specter of out-of-control bureaucrats intruding on the liberty of citizens, undermining legal stability, serving only special interests and invading the domain of the states. In other words, the justices are paternalistically claiming to protect Congress from itself. ***In all of these areas and in plenty more, the justices have seized for themselves an active role in governance. When Mr. Roberts recently refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, nothing stopped Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan or Ketanji Brown Jackson from volunteering to testify, but they did not. Nothing is stopping them from publicly calling for a binding ethics code or from questioning not just the correctness but also the legitimacy of their institution’s assertiveness, but they have not.

Persons: Beau Baumann, Neil Gorsuch, Roberts, —, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson Organizations: Republican, Democratic, Committee

Search resuls for: "Elena Kagan"

25 mentions found