How Appealing



Tuesday, June 20, 2017

“Bayview Park cross ruled unconstitutional, must be removed in 30 days”: In today’s edition of The Pensacola (Fla.) News Journal, Jim Little has a front page article that begins, “A cross that has stood in Bayview Park for the last 48 years must be removed within 30 days, a federal judge has ruled.”

And Valerie Richardson of The Washington Times reports that “Judge reluctantly orders cross to be removed from public park, hopes SCOTUS will revisit; Atheists challenged religious symbol upkeep funded by public moneys.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida at this link.

Posted at 8:35 PM by Howard Bashman



“UCLA School of Law’s Supreme Court clinic wins landmark trademark case; The victory in Matal v. Tam marks the second win of the term for the clinic”: Joshua Rich of UCLA Newsroom has this report.

Word on the street is that this guy and this guy also had something to do with yesterday’s outcome.

Posted at 2:53 PM by Howard Bashman



“Koch Bros.-Linked PAC Runs Ad for Penn Law Prof’s 3rd Circuit Nomination”: Max Mitchell has this front page article in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia’s daily newspaper for lawyers.

Posted at 2:38 PM by Howard Bashman



“Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that ‘disparage’ others violates the First Amendment.” Robert Barnes has this front page article in today’s edition of The Washington Post.

In today’s edition of The Washington Times, Alex Swoyer has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court ruling against censoring The Slants’s name bolsters Washington Redskins trademark case.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Adam Liptak has an article headlined “Justices Strike Down Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks.” And Ken Belson has an article headlined “Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court rules the Slants may trademark their name, striking down law banning offensive terms.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court upholds offensive trademarks as form of free speech.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court Rules Government Can’t Reject Disparaging Trademarks; Justices unanimously sided with Asian-American rock band the Slants, which was refused a trademark by the Patent Office.”

In today’s edition of The Oregonian, David Greenwald has a front page article headlined “Portland’s the Slants ‘humbled and thrilled’ after Supreme Court trademark win.”

Julieta Chiquillo of The Dallas Morning News has an article headlined “Why the Supreme Court protects offensive trademarks but not Texas plates with Confederate flag.”

Sam Hananel of The Associated Press reports that “Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional.” And Stephen Whyno of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court pushes Redskins’ name fight back to society.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Curbs on Disparaging Trademarks Thrown Out by Top U.S. Court.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “U.S. top court finds law banning offensive trademarks unconstitutional.”

Ariane de Vogue of CNN.com reports that “Supreme Court strikes down law blocking disparaging trademarks.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court rules the government can’t refuse to register trademarks considered offensive; Redskins declare victory after Asian-American band wins challenge to disparagement ban.”

Joe Mullin of Ars Technica reports that “Supreme Court rules: Offensive trademarks must be allowed; Justice Samuel Alito: ‘Giving offense is a viewpoint.’

At the “THR, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Supreme Court Strikes Down Rule Against Disparaging Trademarks; Simon Tam, the Asian-American frontman of The Slants, emerges victorious in his years-long quest to register his rock band’s name.”

Lyle Denniston has a blog post titled “Trademarks protected as free speech.”

In commentary, online at Bloomberg View, law professor Stephen L. Carter has an essay titled “Offensive Speech Is Free Speech. If Only We’d Listen. The Supreme Court loosens restrictions on trademarks at a time when society is less tolerant of unpopular ideas.”

And at CNN.com, Marc Randazza has an essay titled “Rock band The Slants’ victory in court secures your rights.”

Posted at 1:24 PM by Howard Bashman



“Justices to Hear Major Challenge to Partisan Gerrymandering”: Adam Liptak has this front page article in today’s edition of The New York Times. And Michael Cooper has an article headlined “Gerrymandering Case Echoes in Inkblot-Like Districts Across the U.S.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes has an article headlined “Supreme Court to hear potentially landmark case on partisan gerrymandering.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has a front page article headlined “Partisan gerrymandering is almost as old as America, but will the Supreme Court decide it has gone too far?

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Supreme Court to rule on how election districts are drawn.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal reports that “Supreme Court to Consider Limits on Partisan Drawing of Election Maps; High court to consider whether excessive partisan gerrymandering violates constitution.”

Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that “Supreme Court to hear major political redistricting case; Justices stop forced redraw of Wisconsin’s map.”

In today’s edition of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Patrick Marley has a front page article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court to hear Wisconsin’s redistricting case but blocks redrawing of maps.”

In today’s edition of The Wisconsin State Journal, Ed Treleven has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court to take Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, delays order to re-do districts for 2018.”

Katelyn Ferral of The Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin reports that “U.S. Supreme Court set to hear Wisconsin gerrymandering case.”

In today’s edition of The Dallas Morning News, Jamie Lovegrove has a front page article headlined “Supreme Court to take up partisan gerrymandering case with potential Texas implications.”

Anne Blythe of The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina reports that “Supreme Court’s review of Wisconsin partisan gerrymander case could have impact in NC.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Top court to hear case that could reshape US political map.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Partisan Gerrymandering Will Get U.S. Supreme Court Scrutiny.”

Andrew Chung of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court to hear major case on political boundaries.”

Ariane de Vogue and Daniella Diaz of CNN.com report that “Supreme Court to hear partisan gerrymandering case.”

Josh Gerstein of Politico.com reports that “Supreme Court to hear partisan gerrymandering case; State wins stay from justices on 5-4 vote.”

Sam Levine of HuffPost reports that “Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Potentially Monumental Political Gerrymandering Case; The case could dramatically impact the way states draw electoral districts.”

At the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center, Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Court may rule on partisan gerrymandering — but maybe not.”

Cassandra Pollock of The Texas Tribune has a report headlined “The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a Wisconsin redistricting case. What does that mean for Texas?

In commentary, online at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern has a jurisprudence essay headlined “Does Partisan Gerrymandering Violate the First Amendment? A pair of Supreme Court decisions about freedom of speech strengthen the plaintiffs’ argument in a blockbuster redistricting case.”

And online at The Boston Globe, David Daley has an essay titled “Will this redistricting case tilt Justice Kennedy?

Posted at 8:35 AM by Howard Bashman



“For Jay Sekulow, New Trump Lawyer, Public Stumble Is Out of Character”: Charlie Savage has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Sari Horwitz, Devlin Barrett, and Tom Hamburger have an article headlined “Conservative talk-show host and First Amendment litigator is Trump’s newest lawyer.”

And Paul Barrett of Bloomberg Businessweek has a report headlined “The New Face of Trump’s Legal Team Is the Christian Right’s Pit Bull; Jay Sekulow has an impressive Supreme Court record; But a criminal defense lawyer he is not.”

Posted at 8:22 AM by Howard Bashman