WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, March 21

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• U.S. Supreme Court rejects Christian preacher’s challenge to university (John Kruzel, Reuters)
• Student athlete urges Supreme Court to keep West Virginia’s anti-trans sports ban on hold (Devan Cole, CNN)
• ‘New Era’ of Scrutiny Brings Calls for Supreme Court Ethics Code (Lydia Wheeler & Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law)
• New York School Vaccination Rules Left Intact by Supreme Court (Greg Stohr, Bloomberg)
• When There Are Nine… (Steve Vladeck, One First)

SCOTUS NEWS

Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case

In a short procedural order, the Supreme Court on Monday morning threw out a lower-court ruling allowing a state court clerk to be sued for telling a pregnant teenager that her parents must be notified of their child’s desire to seek an abortion without their consent. The justices sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot – that is, no longer a live dispute. The unsigned order, which came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference last week, drew a sharp dissent from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who complained that the case (and, she suggested, other recent cases) did not meet the stringent criteria normally required for such relief.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit alleging that the clerk, Michelle Chapman, violated the rights of a pregnant 17-year-old, known as Jane Doe. Under Missouri law, Doe was required to obtain written permission from at least one parent before obtaining an abortion. But the law also allows minors to bypass that requirement by going to court, which can grant permission after holding a hearing. When Doe went to the courthouse in 2018 to seek a judicial bypass, Chapman interpreted Missouri laws to require her to notify Doe’s parents of the hearing. Doe instead opted to go to Illinois, where she obtained a judicial bypass and, later, an abortion.

CASE PREVIEW

Justices to consider international reach of U.S. trademark law

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether federal trademark law applies to trademark infringement that takes place outside the United States. In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. the justices will have to apply a modern two-step test – and a 70-year-old case – to determine whether a federal law applies extraterritorially to the Lanham Act, the federal trademark law that was passed in 1946 – a point at which the global economy was far less interconnected than it is today.

Predictably, the party that owns the trademarks in question, Hetronic International, advocates for a maximalist position that would allow it to recover for conduct that took place abroad. On the other hand, Abitron – the alleged infringer – argues that Congress had no intent to extend the Lanham Act beyond the boundaries of this country. The Biden administration takes a middle ground, arguing that the Lanham Act applies only to extraterritorial conduct that results in consumer confusion or mistake in the United States.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Monday, March 20

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

• Supreme Court weighs Navajo Nation water rights dispute ( Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• Video Testimony in the Covid Era Faces a Constitutional Test (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• Special education clash: How one student’s Supreme Court case could make schools more accountable (John Fritze & Alia Wong, USA Today)
• Biden administration urges Supreme Court to leave climate lawsuits to states (Kate Yoder, Grist)
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg is honored at a Supreme Court she wouldn’t recognize (Ariane de Vogue, CNN)

Petitions of the week

Christian school renews effort to expand religious freedom over employment

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.

Nearly three years ago, the Supreme Court extended a First Amendment protection known as the “ministerial exception,” a court-created doctrine that bars courts from reviewing employment decisions by religious employers about their ministers. Last year, four justices issued a statement regarding the denial of a petition that sought to further expand the types of workers who qualify as a minister covered by the exception. Writing for the group, Justice Samuel Alito indicated that although the case was not a suitable candidate for Supreme Court review at that point, the Christian college that filed the petition could return to the court down the road.

That dispute settled in December. But with four justices — the number it takes to grant a petition — signaling their interest in expanding the independence of religious institutions to make employment decisions, it was only a matter of time before another case came to the court. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, at what stage of litigation the ministerial exception should come into play.