Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

We're currently hosting a symposium on Tuesday's decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Click to follow along.
We also hosted a symposium on Monday's decision in June Medical Services v. Russo. Click to read the submissions.

Briefly Mentioned :

Briefly Noted :

On Thursday, the court released orders from the July 1 conference. The justices granted five cases for a total of four hours of oral argument next term.
On Monday, we expect the court to release opinions at 10 a.m. We will be live-blogging starting at 9:20 a.m. at this link, where you can sign up for an email reminder when the live blog begins.

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse

Petition for certiorari denied on October 3, 2016
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
15-1311 E.D. Va. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 16

Issue: (1) Whether the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), violates the First Amendment; (2) whether § 2(a)’s disparagement clause is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments; and (3) whether the government’s decades-long delay between registering a trademark and canceling the registration under § 2(a)’s disparagement clause violates due process.

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Apr 25 2016Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due May 26, 2016)
Apr 25 2016Appendix of Pro-Football, Inc. filed.
May 13 2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 27, 2016, for all respondents.
Jun 27 2016Response to petition from respondents Amanda Blackhorse, et al. filed.
Jun 27 2016Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
Jul 13 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
Jul 15 2016Reply of petitioner Pro-Football, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 3 2016Petition DENIED.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards