Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Monday we expect the Court to issue orders from its April 29 Conference at 9:30 a.m. and opinions in one or more argued cases at 10 a.m. We will begin live-blogging at 9:25 a.m.

Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
15-1311Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse(1) Whether the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), violates the First Amendment; (2) whether § 2(a)’s disparagement clause is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and (3) whether the government’s decades-long delay between registering a trademark and canceling the registration under § 2(a)’s disparagement clause violates due process. (Opinion by )
15-1293Lee v. TamWhether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. (Opinion by )
15-1281Hartley v. SanchezWhether individual detectives and an investigator are entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution based on allegations they knew or should have known the criminal suspect had cognitive limitations making his confession to a crime untrustworthy and not appropriately relied upon by law enforcement to support his arrest. (Opinion by )
15-1292Caroni v. United States(1) Whether a trial court’s error in directing a verdict on venue can be deemed harmless when that element was genuinely contested by the defendant; and (2) whether the general business expenditures of a company that is engaged in illegal activity, but is not wholly illegitimate, satisfy the “promotion” prong of the money laundering statute. (Opinion by )
15-1285Shukh v. Seagate Technology, LLCWhether the “automatic assignment” rule of FilmTec Corp. v. Allied Signal, Inc. should be overruled because it extinguishes inventors’ constitutional and statutory rights to inventorship and ownership, especially in view of criticisms expressed by three Justices of this Court in Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., and the reservation of that issue by the Court. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards