Relist Watch – SCOTUSblog

Relist Watch – SCOTUSblog



John Elwood evaluations Monday’s relists perfunctorily.
The lengthy crunch at work continues for yet one more week, so it’ll be one other quick installment immediately. For readers bemoaning the lack of installments that go on for web page after labored web page with dozens of rigorously culled semi–humorous hyperlinks, I say: Don’t fear — it could nonetheless worsen.
4 new relists this week. Some fairly juicy ones, and it’s a very necessary week for 21st century mental property.
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 18-956, has been to the Supreme Courtroom twice within the final 5 years, with about half the appellate bar taking activates the covers of the petitioner’s briefs. This looks like a superb time for a [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.] The case entails the copyrightability of sure sorts of pc code. Twice the court docket has known as for the views of the solicitor normal, and twice the federal government has argued (once more, with just about full turnover within the attorneys concerned) that cert will not be warranted. Final time the case was in an interlocutory posture, which means remaining judgment had not been issued by the decrease court docket, which ordinarily weighs towards Supreme Courtroom overview. We’ll see if the court docket follows the solicitor normal’s advice now that the case is on overview of a remaining judgment. There are practically twice as many amicus briefs as final time (15 versus eight), so it could be exhausting to influence the court docket that the case will not be certworthy.
The Lanham Act offers that generic phrases will not be registered as logos. United States Patent and Trademark Workplace v. Reserving.com B.V., 19-46, is a authorities petition that asks whether or not a web based enterprise’s addition of “.com” to an in any other case generic time period creates a protectable trademark. The U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that it does; the Patent and Trademark Workplace argues it doesn’t. If this case is granted, it could be the primary time within the court docket’s historical past that its plenary docket options two web site names in case captions.
Thompson v. Hebdon, 19-122, raises the query whether or not Alaska’s $500 individual-to-candidate and individual-to-group contribution limits violate the First Modification. A bunch of contributors (principally from Alaska, although the named petitioner is from Wisconsin) needed to offer more cash to candidates and introduced swimsuit difficult these limits, and the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the ninth Circuit rejected their claims. Earlier than the Supreme Courtroom, the challengers argue that Alaska is an “excessive outlier[],” that it’s one in every of solely three states which have such low limits and that its restrict is badly outdated as a result of it’s simply half the scale of the restrict the court docket upheld greater than 40 years in the past in Buckley v. Valeo, and decrease when adjusted for inflation than the $400 restrict the court docket struck down in Randall v. Sorrell. Alaska argues that the proof at trial demonstrated that its limits are applicable for “the distinctive 49th state, which solely not too long ago recovered from a public corruption scandal implicating ten p.c of its legislature,” and given how campaigns are carried out within the state.
That leaves the week’s most puzzling relist, Eady v. United States, 18-9424. While you’re attempting to learn tea leaves from the docket, any petition that presents three questions (as Eady does) causes an involuntary shudder. Lamar Eady Jr. raises challenges to his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and to a sentence enhancement he acquired below the Supreme Courtroom’s favourite statute, the Armed Profession Prison Act. Eady argues that final time period’s choice in Rehaif v. United States, which held statute prohibiting aliens “unlawfully in america” from possessing firearms requires displaying the alien knew he was unlawfully current, ought to be prolonged to his case, in order that the federal government should present Eady knew he was a felon. The federal government argues Eady did not protect that challenge. Close to as I can inform, the court docket is attempting to type that out.
That’s all for this week. We’ll be again subsequent week with extra. No, wait: much less.
New Relists
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 18-956[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]Points: (1) Whether or not copyright safety extends to a software program interface; and (2) whether or not, because the jury discovered, the petitioner’s use of a software program interface within the context of making a brand new pc program constitutes honest use. CVSG: 09/27/2019.(relisted after the November 1 convention)
Eady v. United States, 18-9424Points: (1) Whether or not the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to each the possession and standing components of a 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) crime; (2) whether or not, below the “sensible likelihood” normal of Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, it’s essential to determine a reported case to ascertain state statute is overbroad vis-a-vis a federal definition if the plain language of the state statute so signifies; and (three) whether or not the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred below Miller-El v. Cockrell and Buck v. Davis in denying the petitioner, Lamar Eady, a certificates of appealability based mostly upon opposed circuit precedent, when the query of whether or not Florida felony battery below Fla. Stat. § 784.041(1) is an ACCA “violent felony” is debatable amongst cheap jurists.(relisted after the November 1 convention)
United States Patent and Trademark Workplace v. Reserving.com B.V., 19-46Concern: Whether or not, when the Lanham Act states generic phrases will not be registered as logos, the addition by a web based enterprise of a generic top-level area (“.com”) to an in any other case generic time period can create a protectable trademark.(relisted after the November 1 convention)
Thompson v. Hebdon, 19-122Concern: Whether or not Alaska’s $500 individual-to-candidate and individual-to-group contribution limits violate the First Modification.(relisted after the November 1 convention)
Returning Relists
Gundy v. United States, 17-6086Concern: Whether or not the Intercourse Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Legal professional Normal in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (previously 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.(relisted after the October 1, October 11, October 18 and November 1 conferences)
Paul v. United States, 17-8830Concern: Whether or not the Intercourse Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Legal professional Normal in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (previously 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.(relisted after the September 24, 2018, June 27, 2019, October 18, 2019, and November 1, 2019, conferences)
Caldwell v. United States, 18-6852Concern: Whether or not the Intercourse Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Legal professional Normal in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (previously 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.(relisted after the February 15, June 27, October 18 and November 1 conferences)
Terry v. Oklahoma, 18-8801Concern: Whether or not the boundaries established within the Treaty of February 23, 1867, for the eight tribes inside the former Indian Territory of northeastern Oklahoma represent an “Indian reservation” immediately below 18 U.S.C § 1151(a).(relisted after the October 11, October 18 and November 1 conferences)
Isom v. Arkansas, 18-9517Concern: Whether or not Sam Pope and Kenneth Isom’s important adversarial historical past created an unconstitutional danger of bias below the due course of clause when Pope later sat because the trial decide in Isom’s unrelated coram nobis listening to.(relisted after the October 11, October 18 and November 1 conferences)
McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18-9526Concern: Whether or not the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes dedicated inside the historic Creek boundaries is topic to unique federal jurisdiction.(relisted after the October 11, October 18 and November 1 conferences)
Peithman v. United States, 19-16[Disclosure: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to an amicus in this case.]Concern: Whether or not 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) authorizes forfeiture imposed collectively and severally amongst co-conspirators, because the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the sixth and eighth Circuits have held, or whether or not such joint and several other legal responsibility is foreclosed below the reasoning of Honeycutt v. United States, because the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the third Circuit has held.(relisted after the October 11, October 18 and November 1 conferences)
Posted in Gundy v. U.S., Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., Peithman v. U.S., U.S. Patent and Trademark Workplace v. Reserving.com B.V., Thompson v. Hebdon, Terry v. Oklahoma, Isom v. Arkansas, McGirt v. Oklahoma, Paul v. U.S., Caldwell v. U.S., Eady v. U.S., Featured, Instances within the Pipeline
Beneficial Quotation:
John Elwood,
Relist Watch,
SCOTUSblog (Nov. 6, 2019, 2:30 PM),

Relist Watch



Supply hyperlink



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *