SCOTUS RULES ON “SCANDALOUS” TRADEMARKS | The ACA To Go Another Round At Supreme Court | Still Waiting On Census And Partisan Gerrymandering Decisions
June 24, 2019
ONE FOR THE SWEAR JAR
|Today, SCOTUS struck down a longstanding ban on trademarks including “immoral” or “scandalous” words and symbols. The case was brought by the clothing designer of “FUCT” who wanted to trademark the name for his label. The high court’s 6-3 ruling today allows him to move forward with securing that trademark. JUSTICES KAGAN, THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH comprised the majority. The court seemed to have struggled with where to draw the line on words they would find to be the most vulgar, with several penning opinions of their own that partially agreed and dissented from the majority opinion. In announcing the decision, Justice Kagan said, “The most fundamental principle of free speech law is that the government can’t penalize or disfavor or discriminate against expression based on the ideas or viewpoints if conveys…The ban on ‘immoral’ and ‘scandalous’ trademarks does just that.”
PASSING THE BUCK
|The Supreme Court today turned away a challenge to PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S authority to impose tariffs on imported steel based on national security concerns. Without comment, the justices didn’t take on the challenge to the president using national security as the legal justification for his trade agenda.
THE ISSUE THAT WON'T GO AWAY
|The Affordable Care Act gets yet another hearing at the Supreme Court, with justices agreeing today to decide whether the federal government was entitled to break a promise to shield insurance companies from some of the risks they took in participating in the exchanges established by PRESIDENT OBAMA’S healthcare plan. At issue is one of three risk management programs in the ACA designed to shield insurers from losses and give them a greater incentive to participate in individual exchanges. This program created “risk corridors,” but insurers say the government never fully funded the program, and owe them $12 billion.
NO LAW AT ALL
|Lawrence Hurley with Reuters reports JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH joined his liberal colleagues in a 5-4 ruling today that strikes down a law imposing stiff criminal sentences for people convicted of certain crimes involving firearms for being unconstitutionally vague. The court ruled against the Trump administration in declaring that the law in question was written too vaguely and the decision invalidates the firearms convictions of two men in Texas. Gorsuch wrote, “In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.”
SCOTUS CONFIDENTIAL
|SCOTUS dealt a blow to Freedom of Information advocates today. Ariane de Vogue with CNN reports that the Supreme Court ruled the term “confidential” can be interpreted broadly to allow the government to withhold from disclosure under FOIA private businesses’ financial or commercial data in the government’s possession — even if the disclosure of that information would not cause any harm to the businesses.
CLOSE TO HOME
|Jonathan Ellis and Richard Wolf with USA Today also report on the Supreme Court limiting access to government records. They explain the background of the case which holds a particular interest given their affiliated outlet. “A retailers trade group, the Food Marketing Institute, and the federal government had argued for a broad definition that would leave ample room to keep data from the public. Media organizations and public interest groups favored a more narrow definition requiring harm, which would make confidentiality apply to fewer FOIA requests. In 2011, the case began with a request that the Argus Leader newspaper made under the Freedom of Information Act. The Sioux Falls, S.D., newsroom is part of the USA TODAY Network.”
THIS IS NOT THE END, THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING
|The Supreme Court has a matter of days to announce some major decisions before the end of the term that, according to Richard Wolf with USA Today, “could affect American democracy for the next decade and beyond.” A handful of huge cases are still undecided, including one over a citizenship question being added to the census and one over partisan gerrymandering.
COUNTING ON THE COUNT
|A new report from Nidhi Prakash with Buzzfeed is aptly titled, “Inside the massive, coordinated push to make sure a census citizenship question does not ‘distort democracy.'” The piece looks into the national coalition fighting to make sure immigrants and their families are counted, particularly as concerns grow over the Trump administration’s efforts to target immigrant communities and exclude travelers from coming to the country.
SCOTUS VIEWS
The Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment Reclamation
The Wall Street Journal“The Supreme Court’s first term with a new majority is proving to be far more consequential than many Court-watchers anticipated, and in a good way. Long-dormant constitutional principles—such as the nondelegation doctrine—are being debated anew, and core rights are being refortified according to their original meaning.”
In Denying Curtis Flowers A Fair Trial, Mississippi Eroded The Justice System’s Credibility
The Washington Post“The court declared decades ago that prosecutors — or, for that matter, defense lawyers — cannot strike jurors because they are black, white or any other race. The same restriction applies to gender. Otherwise, the criminal-justice system would encourage the judging of human beings based on the color of their skin. Some prosecutors are apparently still catching up.”
Census 2020: Don't Get Mad, Get Counted
The Hill“But there is a way to overcome the question’s malicious effects: Everyone must stand up and be counted, without fear. Regardless of how the high court rules, our elected officials, 2020 candidates, political parties and community leaders must encourage maximum turnout for the census, with the same vigor they use to get out the vote. Just as all who live in this country have a civic duty to answer the census, our nation’s leaders have an obligation to ensure this constitutionally required effort succeeds.”
OTHER NEWS
Why Sports Betting Hasn't Gone Nationwide Yet After Supreme Court Ruling
Associated Press“In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for every state to legalize sports betting, a regional divide has opened as states decide whether to expand their gambling options. By year’s end, legalization is possible in a dozen states in the Northeast and Midwest. But most states in the Deep South and far West — SEC and Pac-12 territory in college sports — are staying on the sidelines, at least for now.”