Supreme Court rejects early challenge to Trump steel tariffs
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting an early challenge to President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs on imported steel based on national security concerns.
The justices did not comment on Monday in leaving in place a decision by the Court of International Trade that ruled against steel importers and other users of imported steel who challenged the 25% tariff on steel that Trump imposed in 2018.
The importers argue that Trump does not have unbounded authority under the Constitution to regulate trade. They say that job belongs to Congress.
The legal challenge is at an early stage, before a federal appeals court has weighed in. The case could return to the Supreme Court later.
Justices side with business, government in information fight
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is siding with businesses and the U.S. government in a ruling about the public’s access to information.
The high court ruled Monday against a South Dakota newspaper that was seeking information about the government’s food assistance program, previously known as food stamps. The Argus Leader newspaper wanted to know how much money goes annually to every store nationwide that participates in the government’s $65 billion-a-year Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP.
Reporters asked the government for the information under the Freedom of Information Act. The justices sided with a supermarket trade association and the U.S. government, which argued against the information’s release.
The Argus Leader is owned by USA Today publisher Gannett. It is the largest newspaper in South Dakota.
High court strikes down ‘scandalous’ part of trademark law
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has struck down a section of federal law that prevented officials from registering trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral, handing a victory Monday to California fashion brand FUCT.
The high court ruled that the century-old provision is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately refused about 150 trademark applications a year as a result of the provision.
The high court’s ruling means that the people and companies behind those failed applications can re-submit them for approval. And new trademark applications cannot be refused on the grounds they are scandalous or immoral.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that the “‘immoral or scandalous’ bar is substantially overbroad.”
The Trump administration had defended the provision, arguing that it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences.
The justices’ ruling was in some ways expected because of one the court made two years ago. In 2017, the justices unanimously invalidated a related provision of federal law that told officials not to register disparaging trademarks, finding that restriction violated the First Amendment. In that case, an Asian-American rock band sued after the government refused to register its band name, “The Slants,” because it was seen as offensive to Asians.
The latest decision could result in an uptick in requests to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register trademarks that would have previously been considered scandalous or immoral. But Barton Beebe, a New York University law professor who has studied the provision the justices struck down and co-authored a Supreme Court brief in the case , said he thinks that’s unlikely.
Beebe said he doesn’t believe there’s a large, pent-up demand for trademark registration by people refused it previously under the provision. He said most of the trademarks refused registration under the provision recently were for putting words on clothing.
That was what happened in the case the justices ruled on. Los Angeles-based FUCT began selling clothing in 1991. Federal officials refused to register the brand’s name.
Like other companies denied trademark registration under the scandalous or immoral provision of the Lanham Act, the brand was still able to use the word officials declined to register. It just didn’t get the benefits that come with registering a trademark. Erik Brunetti, the artist behind the brand, said that made it difficult for the brand to go after counterfeiters.
The case is Iancu v. Brunetti, 18-302.
