Supreme Court sets 7 hearings, including domestic abuser firearm ban.
The Supreme Court has an exciting lineup of cases scheduled for oral argument after its new term begins on Oct. 2. These cases include a domestic abuser gun ban and a dispute over whether a critic can trademark an insult targeting former President Donald Trump.
Seven cases have been scheduled for hearing dates running from Oct. 30 through Nov. 8. Among them are cases involving social media blocking by government officials and a challenge to civil asset forfeiture.
For the court to hear a case, at least four of the nine justices must vote to grant the petition.
Trump T-Shirt Trademark
The court will hear Vidal v. Elster (court file 22-704) on Nov. 1, which concerns whether progressive activist and lawyer Steve Elster can trademark a belittling phrase aimed at President Donald Trump for use on T-shirts.
The ruling puts the administration of President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in the unusual position of defending the interests of President Trump, a Republican. Both are seeking the presidential nomination of their respective parties for 2024.
The expression “Trump Too Small” was inspired by a crude joke that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) made during the 2016 Republican presidential primary season. Mr. Rubio, then a presidential candidate, mocked then-fellow candidate Trump by saying he had “small hands.”
“Have you seen his hands? And you know what they say about men with small hands,” Mr. Rubio said at the time.
The “small hands” quip was quickly seized upon by Trump critics and it became a viral meme online.
Trademark officials rejected Mr. Elster’s registration under the Lanham Act, finding that “the use of the name ‘Trump’ in the proposed mark would be construed by the public as a reference to Donald Trump.” The official found that under the intellectual property statute, his office couldn’t register trademarks that include the name of a living person without that person’s written consent.
Mr. Elster, on the other hand, claims his free speech rights were violated. An appeals court agreed with him, and the government appealed.
Federal Firearm Law
On Nov. 7, the court will hear United States v. Rahimi (court file 22-915), which concerns a federal law that bars people under domestic violence-related restraining orders from possessing firearms. The Biden administration supports the ban.
Zackey Rahimi, who previously entered a guilty plea to violating the statute, was involved in five shooting incidents after a restraining order was entered against him in February 2020.
Then, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark Bruen decision in June 2022, which declared a constitutional right to bear arms in public places for self-defense. Mr. Rahimi asked the courts to review his conviction given the change in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found that the law had ceased to be constitutional in light of the Bruen ruling. The ban on the possession of firearms by someone under a domestic restraining order “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted,” the circuit court stated in its ruling.
Social Media Blocking
On Oct. 31, the Supreme Court will hear O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (court file 22-324) and a related case, Lindke v. Freed (court file 22-611).
The issue is whether Americans can sue government officials who block them on social media, a controversy that arose during President Trump’s time in office. The cases are likely to have an impact on all levels of government as citizens increasingly turn to social media to interact with public officials.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether a public official is engaging in state action subject to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when he blocks an individual from accessing his social media account.
Katie Fallow, an attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which participated in a lawsuit against President Trump, previously told NBC News that government officials are required to accept feedback from the public.
“As many courts have held, it doesn’t matter whether it’s the president or a local city manager; government officials can’t block people from these forums simply because they don’t like what they’re saying,” she said.
Veteran Education Benefits
On Nov. 8, the Supreme Court will hear Rudisill v. McDonough (court file 22-888), a case that could make 1.7 million post-9/11 veterans eligible for additional education benefits that could be worth billions of dollars.
The case is about whether a veteran who qualifies for education benefits under multiple GI Bill programs is required to use up or abandon the benefits of one program in order to take advantage of benefits under another. The petitioner is FBI Special Agent James Rudisill, a decorated U.S. Army veteran.
The case centers on the Department of Veterans Affairs’s interpretation of administrative provisions of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, also known as the Post-9/11 GI Bill, which then-President George W. Bush signed into law in 2008.
The law was enacted to provide enhanced educational benefits that were more generous than the then-prevailing peacetime Montgomery GI Bill, a Korean War-era law that permits veterans to use benefits from any individual programs or a combination of them for up to 48 months. Congress approved the Post-9/11 measure in recognition of the “especially arduous” wartime service required of veterans since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Mr. Rudisill’s attorneys previously told The Epoch Times.
Property Seizures
On Oct. 30, the Supreme Court will take up Culley v. Marshall (court file 22-585), which is about class-action lawsuits filed by two women whose automobiles were seized by local governments.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...