Today in Supreme Court History: June 24, 2013

6/24/2013: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I is decided.

Comments

[bye]

Scalia

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them."

[SMP0328]

I believe Fisher II was effectively overruled by SFFA v. Harvard (2023). There's no way to implement the former while complying with the latter.

[SMP0328]

Today's list of cases from captcrisis.com

“Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I”, 570 U.S. 297 (decided June 24, 2013): all race based factors in college admissions are subject to “strict scrutiny”; remands the question of university’s admissions policy to be reconsidered by the Fifth Circuit (which had merely accepted race factors if made “in good faith”); Fifth Circuit approved the policy (in which race was “a factor of a factor of a factor” in multi-step evaluation) and the Court affirmed in “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II”, 2016

Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (decided June 24, 2004): Freedom of Information requests to Cheney’s Energy Task Force were overbroad and likely to conflict with official duties; remands to lower court to narrow requests (Cheney argued that the requests should be denied in full) (suit was brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, an odd couple) (easy to see why oilman Cheney fought so hard against disclosure; leaks showed that even before 9/11 he was planning on toppling Saddam Hussein so as to open up the Iraqi oil market)

Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388 (decided June 24, 2019): a crude but probably unavoidable offspring of Matal v. Tam, 2017, which had struck down on First Amendment grounds the USPTO Office’s refusal on statutory “disparagement” grounds to trademark “The Slants”, the name of an Asian-American band which wanted to “take back” that racial slur; here, the Court vacates the refusal to trademark the clothing line “FUCT” despite the “scandalous” name

Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (decided June 24, 1974): rules that the film “Carnal Knowledge” was not obscene (I saw it as a teenager -- Ann-Margret was hot!! -- also, when I was back to having a free hand to hold the popcorn, I realized it was a good movie)

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, 597 U.S. 424 (decided June 24, 2022): approving HHS rule that percentage of Medicare-eligible patients (which goes into calculation of reimbursement rates for low-income-serving hospitals) includes those not actually receiving Medicare

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (decided June 24, 2022): the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion and it’s not a substantive right “deeply rooted” in tradition; overruling the pro-choice extent of the holdings in Roe v. Wade, 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992 and upholding Mississippi statute outlawing abortions after 15 weeks “except in a medical emergency” (i.e., to save life of mother) or if “severe fetal abnormality”

Hooper v. Bernadillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612 (decided June 24, 1985): Equal Protection violated by New Mexico statute limiting Vietnam War veteran property tax deduction to those who were New Mexico residents at the time

Pauley v. Bethenergy Mines, 501 U.S. 680 (decided June 24, 1991): permits two extra restrictions agency placed on applicants for federal Black Lung Disease benefits because they are obvious (benefits denied if no showing that condition arose out of working in mines, or if applicant does not in fact have pneumoconiosis)

Dutra Group v. Batterton, 588 U.S. 358 (decided June 24, 2019): applying admiralty common law, holds that punitive damages not recoverable on claim of unseaworthiness (sailor injured by hatch blowing open)

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (decided June 24, 2010): vacates conviction against Enron executive for “honest services fraud” because statutory language was vague and would include some legal activities; Skilling’s conviction on other counts is not at issue so the case is sent back for resentencing (he also argued, unsuccessfully, that the jury was biased due to pretrial publicity)

[SMP0328]

Josh's post notwithstanding, Dobbs is clearly the most important case on this list.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Oh, hogwash. If it was "clearly" then there'd be no debate and you wouldn't have to add the unnecessary "clearly".

[SMP0328]

Which decision on the list do you believe is most important?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I have no opinion on the matter.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Josh's entries are a mixed bag, including birthdays. So, the "notwithstanding" is fairly uncontroversial. He does not, by firm rule, choose the most important case decided on such and such a day.

Today's opinion was a 4-3 ruling that accepted race-based affirmative action. It was something of a holding action given that the vote & the likelihood that Scalia's replacement would be the deciding factor. Ultimately, the question was decided when there was some more change in personnel.

Given the limited result in Fisher and those other cases, Dobbs (overturning a 50-year-old precedent of significance importance) would seem to be a clear winner.

[A Japanese Student]

Erik Brunetti holds the trademark for FUCT in Japan as well - registration #6494565. No objections or refusals.

Under Japanese law, marks "likely to cause damage to public order" cannot be registered. Trademark Act of 1959 §4(1)(vii). This category is broad, and includes both viewpoint-discriminatory and non-discriminatory reasons.

For example, vulgar or offensive marks cannot be registered, nor can marks be registered when the use in specified goods or services would be offensive (such as using Islam-related words on pork or alcohol).

Non-discriminatory reasons include legal prohibition (such as the "Patent University" - applicant was not a university), possible confusion with governmental entities (including foreign ones - "FBI" was rejected), dilution, or fraudulent application.

[apedad]

I wonder why Japan would include foreign entities when the foreign entities don't' care.

You can order a "FBI" tshirt on line.

https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256802042089011.html?src=bing&aff_short_key=UneMJZVf&aff_platform=true&isdl=y&albch=shopping&acnt=135095331&isdl=y&albcp=555035115&albag=1307320471987931&slnk=&trgt=pla-4585307093723585&plac=&crea=81707584806699&netw=o&device=c&mtctp=e&utm_source=Bing&utm_medium=shopping&utm_campaign=PA_Bing_US_PLA_PC_US%20AFF_maxvalue_20241012_AESupply&utm_content=Aff&utm_term=fbi%20tshirt&msclkid=ee52193921a11f2d5c2d7163f769b8f5&gatewayAdapt=glo2usa

[David Nieporent]

I thought you were gonna go with

https://www.etsy.com/listing/1303011685/funny-fbi-female-body-inspector-cobra