In 2022, state and local governments banned 2,571 different books. This is more books than were subject to such bans in the previous three years combined (2,436). Most of these efforts are taken at the local level. Texas’...more
Maine Scholarship Program Excluding Sectarian Schools Unconstitutional. In Carson v. Makin, 142 S.Ct. 1987 (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court struck a tuition assistance program that requires school districts to transmit payment...more
When the government allows a private group to display its message on public property, the message does not necessarily become government speech, and the private speaker may remain entitled to First Amendment protections....more
On May 2, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Shurtleff v. Boston, No, 20-1800, holding that because Boston’s flag-raising program does not constitute government speech, Boston violated the Free Speech Clause of the First...more
On April 20, 2020, we blogged about the legal challenge to Montana’s requirement that sellers of cattle must contribute $1.00 per head to Montana’s Beef Council to fund advertisements for beef. Many sellers would prefer to...more
This week, the Court addresses the constitutionality of government assessments that fund third-party beef advertisements, and clarifies the burden-shifting framework for appointing lead plaintiffs under the Private Securities...more
Litigators often refer to so-called "bad facts," which are the facts that have the potential to sink a case with a jury. This 33rd issue of Unprecedented discusses a case with perhaps the worst alleged set of "bad facts" that...more
Widely considered a star of social media, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez backed down from a Twitter fight in the form of a lawsuit filed by one of her Twitter followers. The suit, filed by former New York assemblyman Dov Hikind,...more
Now we’re talking! As I’ve written on multiple occasions, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) is the broadest restriction on constitutionally protected speech in our nation’s history. Worse still, the statute is...more
A federal judge has ruled that the First Amendment prohibits President Donald J. Trump from blocking Twitter users because of political disagreements....more
A recent Federal Court decision on the issue of whether to grant a preliminary injunction in the ongoing saga of the appropriateness of adding the pesticide Glyphosate to the CA Prop 65 list has become the grist for the “Fake...more
In a recently issued decision, the Second Circuit held that a food truck could not be excluded from a New York State lunch program solely because the truck and the food it sells was branded using ethnic slurs. Wandering Dago,...more
Last Friday, in In re Brunetti, the Federal Circuit held that the ban on “scandalous and immoral” trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) is unconstitutional. The decision follows the June 19, 2017, Supreme Court decision, Matal...more
A few Sundays ago, Terry Bradshaw, the Hall of Fame quarterback, used his platform as the longtime co-host of the television program Fox NFL Sunday to address the growing controversy over some NFL players choosing to kneel...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit maintained its prior decision, holding that defendants violated the First Amendment when refusing to approve use of university trademarks on t-shirts incorporating a marijuana...more
Trademark law is an important form of protection for the fashion and beauty industry. It protects both brand owners and consumers by regulating the registration of brands, or source identifiers, of fashion and beauty...more
In 2014, the Washington Redskins lost a battle before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) where the petitioner, a group of Native American activists, sought cancellation of the “Washington Redskins” trademark, which...more
Asian rock band The Slants is no longer "The Band Who Must Not Be Named," as they titled their most recent album. On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam, striking a provision of the Lanham Act,...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the importance of broad free speech protection in striking down a statute that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to refuse registration of disparaging trademarks....more
In Matal v. Tam, the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional, under the First Amendment, the “disparagement clause” of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which permits denial of a trademark registration application by the United...more
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam unanimously held that a portion of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), the Lanham Act provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . persons, living or...more
A controversial painting removed from display at the U.S. Capitol will not be returning to display after the U.S. District Court denied a request for an injunction before the exhibition in question came to an end. While the...more
Earlier this month, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bloomfield, New Mexico’s installation of a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn in front of city hall violated the Establishment Clause of the First...more
2015 U.S. Trademark Developments Every Food and Beverage Lawyer Should Know - In 2015, U.S. courts provided trademark practitioners with several issues to discuss and debate. Identified and summarized below are the...more
In September, we discussed In re Tam and the potential for a showdown over the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. At that time, a panel of the Federal Circuit had recently upheld the PTO’s refusal to...more