|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.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.