The Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday.  In Already LLC v. Nike, the Court considered whether a federal district court has jurisdiction over a challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark when the registrant promises not to enforce the mark against the plaintiff’s then-existing commercial activities.  Lyle covered the argument for this blog, and Jonathan Stempel reports on the case for Reuters.

The Court also heard argument in Marx v. General Revenue Corp., in which it considered whether a prevailing defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case can recover costs for a lawsuit that was not brought in bad faith.  Transcripts of both oral arguments are available here

Much of yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the effects of Tuesday’s elections and referenda.  Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal reports on potential future nominees to the Court (subscription required), while Daniel Fisher of Forbes suggests that President Obama’s victory could “spell the end of [the] conservative Supreme Court”; Joan Biskupic of Reuters similarly writes that his victory gives the President the opportunity to “deepen his liberal imprint” on the Court.

Other coverage focuses on the possible impact of Tuesday’s votes on same-sex marriage.  Adam Liptak of The New York Times concludes that “it is not clear which side benefited more from [the marriage votes] at the Supreme Court,” while Kenneth Jost argues at Jost on Justice that the Justices might see the referenda results as a tipping point on same-sex marriage. And at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses whether “nine states is sufficient to give the Court popular cover” on the issue of marriage equality.

Last week’s arguments in Florida v. Jardines and Florida v. Harris on the use of drug-sniffing dogs also continue to draw coverage. In her Verdict column for Justia, Sherry F. Colb considers the dogs’ reliability, while Jacob Sullum of Reason argues that “searches triggered by drug-sniffing dogs [] often fail to find the substances supposedly detected by the animals’ keen noses.”  In a follow-up post at Dorf on Law, Colb uses the two cases to propose changes to the way in which the Justices conduct oral arguments.


  • Lawrence Hurley of E&E News reports that “after several years of paying little attention to property rights — a darling cause of conservative activists — the Supreme Court has abruptly changed course,” granting review in two property-rights cases this Term: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, and Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, both of which raise Takings Clause issues.
  • The Center for American Progress is hosting a panel discussion this morning on the effect of the election on the future of the federal courts.  The event will be livestreamed, starting at 10.30.
  • Justice Breyer yesterday delivered the Eizenstat Family Memorial Lecture at the Ahavath Achim synagogue in Atlanta.  MyFox Atlanta has coverage.

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Cormac Early, Thursday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 8, 2012, 10:37 AM),