Breaking News

Friday round-up


  •  Alison Frankel at her On the Case blog for Reuters and Tony Mauro at the National Law Journal (subscription required) have additional coverage of Wednesday’s opinion in Already, LLC v. Nike, in which the Court held that Nike had mooted Already’s action for a declaration of invalidity of a Nike trademark by establishing a covenant not to enforce that trademark against Already, both for its existing products and for future “colorable imitations” of Nike products. [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for this blog in various capacities, served as counsel to the respondent in the case.]
  • For this blog, Kevin Russell analyzes Wednesday’s opinion in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., in which the Court held that water flowing from an improved portion of a navigable river into an unimproved portion thereof does not constitute the “discharge of a pollutant” for Clean Water Act purposes.
  • At Buzzfeed, Chris Geidner profiles Edith Windsor, the plaintiff in this Term’s United States v. Windsor, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
  • At this blog, Lyle reports on a new brief filed by theUnited States in the D.C. Circuit in a Guantanamo war crimes case. Lyle suggests that this brief sends a signal that the administration “is planning to return to the Supreme Court soon, seeking to revive the power of military commissions to try some of the most common anti-terrorism charges, on providing aid to a terrorist network or leader.”
  • In the latest installment of his “SCOTUS for law students” column, Steve Wermiel discusses the Court and technology in the context of this Term’s Maryland v. King, in which the Court will consider whether Maryland’s practice of collecting and analyzing DNA from those who have been arrested and charged with crimes, but who have not been convicted, is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
  • At the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, Ronald V. Miller reports on the oral argument earlier this week in Delia v. E.M.A., in which the Court is considering the preemptive effect of the Medicaid Act’s anti-lien provision on North Carolina state law.

Recommended Citation: Rachel Sachs, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 11, 2013, 9:02 AM),