SCOTUS Justice Makes Stunning Sudden Move – Immediately BAILS On Critical Case

OPINION:  This article contains commentary which may reflect the author’s opinion

The phrase “Trump too small” was the subject of arguments presented before the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to a trademark application filed by a lawyer from California.

Shortly after the commencement of the hearing, Justice Samuel Alito exhibited a disposition to abstain from participating in the case, articulating the following statement: “You don’t need my vote to win this case.”

During the 2016 presidential debate, Senator Marco Rubio made an inappropriate comment regarding Donald Trump. In the year 2018, Steve Elster, a progressive activist and employment lawyer, submitted an application to the trademark office for the registration of the phrase “Trump too small.” Elster initiated the commercialization of t-shirts featuring a printed slogan on the front, accompanied by the words “Trump’s package is too small” imprinted on the opposite side.

The application submitted by the individual was rejected by the trademark office on the grounds that, in accordance with the Lanham Act of 1946, Trump’s written consent would be required. On Wednesday, the court deliberated on the agency’s appeal of a previous order by a lower court, which had overturned its decision to deny lawyer Elster’s trademark application.

According to Elster, the prohibition of registering a trademark that disparages a public figure constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to freedom of speech. According to a report by Newsweek, the justices of the Supreme Court appeared to express skepticism towards the aforementioned allegation.

The legal representative for the United States Patent and Trademark Office promptly asserted at the onset of the hearing that the matter at hand pertains to the necessity of a “government benefit” or federal trademark registration, rather than being a question of free expression.

Justice Alito responded by asserting that “You don’t need my vote to win your case. If I could not vote to sustain this without saying this is the attachment of a condition to a government benefit. Perhaps you’ve simply concluded that Alito isn’t worth it in this situation.”

Jimmy Hoover, a Supreme Court writer for The National Law Journal, tweeted Justice Alito’s response on X (previously known as Twitter), emphasizing the challenges associated with the mentioned case.

Hoover writes that “Alito says that’s a ‘dangerous’ road to go down, and Gorsuch hints USPTO can win based on long history of similar TM laws. Alito lays his cards on the table, says he won’t vote to uphold the name-bar simply because it’s a condition on a gov’t benefit, and asks for another theory.”

Judge Neil Gorsuch, in contrast, highlighted the longstanding prohibition on trademarks that reference living individuals, suggesting that there was no apparent concern regarding the infringement of free expression rights throughout that period.

In response, he suggested, “Why not just look to the history?”

Judge Sonia Sotomayor raised the inquiry as to whether any prior limitations on freedom of expression had ever been imposed. She noted that even if Elster is unable to obtain a trademark for the term, there exists no impediment to his ability to sell the T-shirts.

It is anticipated that the court will affirm the judgment of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reject the application, as oral arguments progress.

In a distinct legal matter, the Supreme Court garnered significant attention with a recent ruling that is anticipated to receive favorable reception from numerous conservative factions.

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari to a case that will determine the extent to which the U.S. government can compel social media corporations to engage in censorship or suppression of specific material.

The issuance of a writ of certiorari by the high court was announced in relation to a lawsuit initiated by Republican attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration. The lawsuit aims to restrict the federal government’s capacity to exert pressure on social media platforms such as Facebook, X, and YouTube, with the intention of suppressing specific information, albeit without explicitly instructing them to do so. Both states have contended that such an action would constitute a clear infringement of the First Amendment, which protects the freedom of speech.

In a statement issued on Friday, Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill expressed her appreciation for the decision made by the top court.

“We are pleased to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this case, giving us yet another opportunity to defend the people from this assault on our First Amendment rights,” Murrill stated. “It brings us one step closer to reestablishing the protections guaranteed to us in the Constitution and under the First Amendment.

“We hope that the Supreme Court will agree that this gross abuse of power must stop and never happen again,” she went on.

According to The Western Journal, it is worth mentioning that…

The lawsuit, initially filed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt in May 2022, dealt with how the government put pressure on tech giants to censor certain information, particularly as it related to the COVID-19 pandemic — and the efficacy of and/or dangers potentially posed by mask-wearing, vaccines and other measures.

In a ruling on July 4, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty fired the first shot in the legal volley on the case, issuing a decision that blocked a number of federal agencies — specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI and the Department of Justice — from interacting with companies in a way that could be construed as “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

According to a September report by the Associated Press, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans rendered a decision that largely favored both states. However, the court “tossed out broader language in an order that a Louisiana-based federal judge had issued July 4 that effectively blocked multiple government agencies from contacting platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to urge the removal of content.”

However, although granting certiorari to the case, the Supreme Court simultaneously stayed the injunction issued by Doughty. Notably, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch, who align with the conservative wing of the court, expressed their dissenting opinion, advocating for the preservation of the injunction.

Sources: Newsweek Western Journal

COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 

 

 

 

 

Send this to a friend