|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-302||Fed. Cir.||Apr 15, 2019||Jun 24, 2019||6-3||Kagan||OT 2018|
Holding: The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 24, 2019. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Breyer joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 29 2018||Application (18A15) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 11, 2018 to August 10, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jul 05 2018||Application (18A15) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 10, 2018.|
|Jul 31 2018||Application (18A15) to extend further the time from August 10, 2018 to September 7, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Aug 01 2018||Application (18A15) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until September 7, 2018.|
|Sep 07 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 9, 2018)|
|Sep 28 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 9, 2018 to November 8, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 02 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 8, 2018.|
|Nov 08 2018||Brief of respondent Erik Brunetti filed.|
|Nov 28 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Dec 11 2018||Reply of petitioners Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 04 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 11 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 15, 2019|
|Feb 15 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|Feb 15 2019||Brief of petitioner Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office filed.|
|Feb 19 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Kurt M. Anderson filed.|
|Feb 19 2019||Consents for amicus brief of Kurt M. Anderson not accepted for filing. (March 04, 2019 -- Document not of the type that is to be filed electronically)|
|Feb 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Feb 26 2019||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Mar 18 2019||Brief of respondent Erik Brunetti filed.|
|Mar 20 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 21 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
|Mar 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 22 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Simon Tam filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of Professors Barton Beebe and Jeanne Fromer filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of the District of Columbia filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Cato Institute, et. al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2019||Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 27 2019||Record from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Apr 02 2019||Reply of petitioner Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 15 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: John R. Sommer, Irvine, Cal.|
|Jun 24 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion. Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Breyer, J., joined.|
|Jul 26 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.