Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upBriefly: At the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Frank LoMonte looks at Matal v. Tam, in which the Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause; he argues that this case is “welcome news for anyone who depends on a government-provided conduit […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Briefly:

  • At the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Frank LoMonte looks at Matal v. Tam, in which the Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause; he argues that this case is “welcome news for anyone who depends on a government-provided conduit to convey a message.”
  • At the International Municipal Lawyer Association’s Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen discusses the State and Local Legal Center’s amicus brief in Artis v. District of Columbia, in which the court will consider whether the statute of limitations for an employment discrimination claim under state law is put on hold while the claim is pending in federal court.
  • In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Elizabeth Wydra argues that Justice Neil “Gorsuch should reflect soberly on his decision to speak at [the Trump International Hotel], which lies at the center of not one but three cases that could come before him in the months ahead.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro, David Kopel and Matthew Larosiere discuss the institute’s amicus brief in Kolbe v. Hogan, a petition asking the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of a Maryland statute prohibiting ownership of assault weapons.
  • At The Franchise Project, Diana Tomezsko argues that the “events in Charlottesville recall Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s acute dissent” in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Supreme Court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com