In a 6-3 majority decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved a copyright question that generated conflicting results in the U.S. Courts of Appeal for years. But as a forceful dissent pointed out, the court left open a more fundamental issue that could render the entire question moot.
In a unanimous victory to the securities industry, the U.S. Supreme Court curbed investor lawsuits based on a company's mere failure to disclose known trends likely to affect their revenues.
In this article, we describe the competing interpretations of Section 666 and comment on the implications of a Supreme Court decision in United States v. Snyder, where it will decide whether the law criminalizes "gratuities," and not simply "bribes," given to state and local officials.
The U.S. Supreme Court on January 9 debated the proper remedy for its 2022 ruling that Congress violated the Constitution when it imposed steep bankruptcy fee hikes on large debtors in some districts but not others.
This case has important implications not only for trademark registrations, but also potentially in determining collisions between trademark rights, rights of publicity, and freedom of speech considerations in future cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith sent ripples through the legal and artistic communities. Months later, legal scholars and art journalists continue to debate whether the decision opens the door for federal courts to act as "art critics." Many, however, downplay how the Supreme Court's decision impacts the ways in which copyright owners may enforce their rights against generative AI tools.
The Supreme Court's Dubin decision is another worthy entrant in the long running series of SCOTUS decisions applying judicial restraints where prosecutors seem unable to restrain themselves.
In a win for trademark holders, the U.S. Supreme Court offered a narrow ruling in the dispute involving "dog toys and whiskey."
The Internet is still standing, but the Supreme Court's reasoning in the Gonzalez opinion remains perplexing. Gonzalez and Taamneh are a story about how the Supreme Court "saved" the Internet from itself, and the Court needed both cases to do so.
Commentary The high court's decision's future application is anything but clear and clarification of the parameters of a "transformative" fair use is left open for another day.
