Oral Argument Scheduled
May 3, 2010
Wendy McGuire Coats
discuss
| June 7, 2010 | to | June 11, 2010 |
Oral Argument Scheduled: June 7-11, 2010
Portland & Seattle
-
So What Case Do We Actually Have Here? Recap: Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
May 2,2010
Last Wednesday, Co-chair of the BASF Appellate Section, Ethan P. Schulman of Crowell & Moring, shared his recent experience as co-counsel in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 19th. Fresh off the wild ride of oral argument before the nation's highest court, Mr. Schulman discussed his insider experience and the unique issues that played out in the case. Mr. Schulman provided a quick reminder of the case's history, which is important to fully understand the case's posture and the Supreme Court's apparent frustration with the issues before it. (read more)
Wendy McGuire Coats
-
“Violence Sells Video Games to Children”
Case to watch: the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, a clash between First Amendment free speech rights and protecting minors from violent content in video games. The California governor originally passed this law in 2005, which prohibits the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 "where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
Prior to the law taking effect, Judge Ronald Whyte of the Northern District of California blocked its enforcement. The Ninth Circuit decision (Kozinski, Thomas and Callahan), available here, affirmed the district court injunction. (read more)
Stevie E. Leahy
-
Next for Arizona? (A Parody)
April 27,2010
A new Arizona law requires local law enforcement to inquire about an individual's immigration status if the officer has reason to believe that he or she is in the United States illegally. The law, signed Friday by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, is just the first of a series of measures designed to ensure that no law--state or federal--is ever broken in the state of Arizona.
Though the immigration law has been riddled with constitutional problems and allegations that it will lead to racial profiling, the Arizona legislature plans on moving forward this week with a new bill that would require police to arrest people who look like they didn't file their federal tax returns this year. While there is no guidance given on who "looks like" they didn't file their tax returns this year, one Arizona lawman was quoted as saying, "Well, dark skin is the first giveaway. Lack of proficient English is the second. Beyond that, white people showing any sign of disposable income." Civil rights organizations are already rallying. (read more)
Emily K. Allen
-
Oral Argument Scheduled
Oral Argument Scheduled: May 3 - 7, 2010 Portland, Seattle, and Pasadena
Wendy McGuire Coats
-
“WOULD YOU RATHER . . . ?” The Ninth Circuit Explores the Gray Middle Ground Between Descriptive and Suggestive Trademarks
April 29,2010
The Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous decision (Cir. Judges Gould, Ikuta, N. Randy Smith) this week in a trademark and unfair competition lawsuit that, while not ground breaking, illuminates many aspects of the line between descriptive and suggestive trademarks. In Zobmondo Entertainment LLC v. Falls Media, LLC, No. 08-56831 (9th Cir. 2010) (full opinion available here), the Court reversed a district court’s decision to invalidate a mark due to it being “descriptive” as a matter of law. The Court addressed two competing game and book publishers whose products are marked or identified as “WOULD YOU RATHER . . . ?” As described by the Court, both companies’ products incorporate questions posing humorous, bizarre or undesirable choices. As an example: “Would you rather be able to expedite the arrival of an elevator by pressing the button multiple times or have the ability to sound incredibly natural and sincere on answering machines?” (read more)
Matthew A. Berliner
-
Prop 8 Docs Will Be Turned Over
April 28,2010
Judge Walker recently gave the ACLU and Equality California a 48-hour window to turn over documents related to the Prop 8 campaign... or else face a daily fine and the possibility of contempt. This evidentiary dispute has been holding up a decision on the status of same-sex marriage in California. Although most believed the groups were not planning on releasing anything, they've changed their minds. Responsive, non-privileged documents will be released, hopefully allowing for a decision in the underlying case. Even though Equality California attempts to put a positive spin on the release, [1] this is something that the interest groups have been fighting against for months.
[1]Equality California, Equality California Issues Statement on Appeal in Prop 8 Trial, April 27, 2010, available at http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4869041&ct=8215315 (last accessed April 28, 2010).Stevie E. Leahy
-
Monsanto Co., v. Geertson Seed Farms, Docket No. 09-475
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Monsanto Company v. Geertson Seed Farms et al. to resolve the standard for granting permanent injunctions designed to remedy violations of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ("NEPA"). NEPA requires federal agencies to take a "hard look" at the environmental consequences of their actions and prescribes procedures to that end. In this appeal from the Ninth Circuit, it is undisputed that the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") violated NEPA when it de-regulated genetically-modified alfalfa crops without first conducting a full-blown environmental impact statement. The appeal concerns, among other things, what a court must do when asked to enjoin actions that must be studied under NEPA. Monsanto, a developer of genetically-modified alfalfa, will argue that courts must hold an evidentiary hearing (essentially a mini-trial) to resolve factual disputes over the magnitude of the risk to the environment before enjoining the challenged-activity, here the planting of genetically-modified alfalfa.
(read more)
Sharla A. Manley
