Thursday round-up

The Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday. InAlready 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 forthis blog, and Jonathan Stempel reports on the case forReuters.

The Court also heard argument inMarx 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 availablehere.

Much of yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the effects of Tuesday’s elections and referenda. Jess Bravin of TheWall Street Journalreports on potential future nominees to the Court (subscription required), while Daniel Fisher ofForbessuggests that President Obama’s victory could “spell the end of [the] conservative Supreme Court”; Joan Biskupic ofReuterssimilarly 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 atJost on Justicethat 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 inFlorida v. JardinesandFlorida v. Harrison the use of drug-sniffing dogs also continue to draw coverage. In herVerdictcolumn for Justia, Sherry F. Colb considers the dogs reliability, while Jacob Sullum ofReasonargues 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 atDorf on Law, Colb uses the two cases to propose changes to the way in which the Justices conduct oral arguments.

Briefly:

• Lawrence Hurley ofE&E Newsreports that “afterseveral 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, andKoontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, both of which raise Takings Clause issues.
• TheCenter for American Progressis 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 theEizenstat Family Memorial Lecture at the Ahavath Achim synagogue in Atlanta. MyFox Atlantahas coverage.