Justices issue March argument calendar
This morning the Supreme Court issued the calendar for its March argument sitting, which begins on March 23 and continues through April 1. When they announced late last year that they would take up three disputes over access to President Donald Trump’s financial records, the justices indicated that the cases would be set for oral argument in March, but they did not set a date for the arguments then. Today they made it official: Trump v. Vance, arising from efforts by the Manhattan district attorney to obtain several years’ worth of Trump’s tax returns as part of a state grand-jury investigation, and the consolidated cases of Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, in which congressional committees are seeking financial records from Trump’s accounting firm and lenders, will be argued on March 31 – two months from today.
Other cases scheduled for oral argument during the March argument session include:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com (March 23): Whether the addition of “.com” to an otherwise generic term by an online business can create a protectable trademark
Google v. Oracle (March 24): Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner.]
FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir (March 24): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual federal employees
Carney v. Adams (March 25): Whether a Delaware law that limits the number of judges affiliated with a particular party to a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts violates the Constitution
U.S. Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International (March 25): Whether the federal government can require foreign affiliates of U.S.-based groups that receive federal funds to have policies expressly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking
Torres v. Madrid (March 30): What it means to be “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures
Pereida v. Barr (March 30): Whether an immigrant who is convicted of a state crime can apply for relief from deportation when it isn’t clear whether his conviction corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.