News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Donald Trump

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Cozen O'Connor

Cozen Currents: In Trump's Image

Cozen O'Connor on

The Cozen Lens- •Even if this year’s Republican Party platform is shorter than usual, former President Trump’s influence is evident in not only the policies it proposes, but perhaps more so in the ones it avoids. •In a...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - July 2, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On July 1, 2024, the last day of the 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions: Trump v. United States, No. 23-939: This case concerns the scope of former President Donald J. Trump’s...more

Nossaman LLP

Compliance Notes - Vol. 5, Issue 25

Nossaman LLP on

Welcome to Compliance Notes from Nossaman’s Government Relations & Regulation Group – a periodic digest of the headlines, statutory and regulatory changes and court cases involving campaign finance, lobbying compliance,...more

Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak

Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity in Trump v. United States

Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak on

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Trump v. United States. The six-Justice majority concluded that the President of the United States is entitled to at least a presumption of immunity from...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Trump v. United States

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, holding that former Presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts that arise within their “conclusive and...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Trademarking History: Justices Uphold Names Clause, Clash Over Reasoning

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vidal v. Elster, a case that pitted trademark law against the First Amendment’s free speech protections. While the Court unanimously upheld the Patent and...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Lanham Act’s Names Clause

McDermott Will & Emery on

In Vidal v. Elster, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment or...more

Troutman Pepper

Supreme Court Upholds Names Clause in Trademark Law, Emphasizing Historical and Traditional Foundations

Troutman Pepper on

In a landmark decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of, or...more

Genova Burns LLC

Unanimous But Fractured: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of “Trump Too Small” Trademark, With Little Guidance for the Future

Genova Burns LLC on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Vidal v. Ester, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) that the federal prohibition on registering trademarks that identify a living individual without their consent does not violate the First...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

SCOTUS Rules on "Trump Too Small"—Third Recent Ruling on First Amendment Implications for Lanham Act 

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

The June 13, 2024, U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vidal v. Elster made waves in the trademark community. All of the Court’s decisions are significant, and this matter was of particular interest because the decision marked the...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Supreme Court Rejects TRUMP TOO SMALL Trademark

Fox Rothschild LLP on

“TRUMP TOO SMALL”- This is the trademark that Steve Elster has been trying to get registered for the past six years since filing his trademark application all the way back in January 2018, during the Trump presidency. Since...more

Holland & Hart - Your Trial Message

Ground Your Hypotheticals

Holland & Hart - Your Trial Message on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on yet another momentous legal issue – this time, the claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for claimed official acts by former President, Donald Trump who...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Today’s Argument Was More Consequential Than Issued Opinions - SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday morning in the case of Joseph Fischer, one of more than 300 people convicted of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding: the congressional certification on January 6, 2021, of...more

Snell & Wilmer

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That States May Disqualify State Candidates Under Insurrection Clause

Snell & Wilmer on

The focus of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Anderson was its holding that states cannot exclude federal candidates from state primary ballots under the Insurrection Clause. This decision, however,...more

Nossaman LLP

Compliance Notes - Vol. 5, Issue 10

Nossaman LLP on

Welcome to Compliance Notes from Nossaman’s Government Relations & Regulation Group – a periodic digest of the headlines, statutory and regulatory changes and court cases involving campaign finance, lobbying compliance,...more

Epstein Becker & Green

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules States Cannot Enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to Disqualify a Presidential Candidate -...

Epstein Becker & Green on

To the surprise of no one connected with the case, or who just listened to the oral argument, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion (i.e., unanimously), decided the case of Trump v. Anderson, holding that states have no...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Trump v. Anderson

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, holding that States may enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against federal officeholders or candidates only to the...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - February 29, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in one case: Trump v. United States, No. 23-939: This case concerns the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump in Special...more

Pierce Atwood LLP

Procedure, Not Politics

Pierce Atwood LLP on

Amid the intense coverage of the Colorado ballot exclusion case that was the subject of oral argument before the Supreme Court earlier this month, the Law Court’s decision in Trump v. Secretary of State on a parallel appeal...more

Epstein Becker & Green

A Big Day at the Court, with a Few Small, Unanimous Decisions - SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

Yesterday might ultimately be remembered as among the most consequential days in the history of the Supreme Court and the nation. That will be determined when a decision in Trump v. Anderson is issued....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - January 8, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On January 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in three cases: Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719: This case addresses the Colorado Supreme Court’s December ruling that barred Donald Trump from...more

Weintraub Tobin

(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional

Weintraub Tobin on

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Vidal v. Elster to determine whether the USPTO’s refusal to register the trademark “Trump Too Small” violates the applicant’s First Amendment rights. Scott Hervey...more

Weintraub Tobin

The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional

Weintraub Tobin on

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Vidal v. Elster to determine whether the USPTO’s refusal to register the trademark “Trump Too Small” violates the applicant’s First Amendment rights. Scott Hervey...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Lanham Act May “Trump” First Amendment (For Once)

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In what appears to be a shift from prior decisions striking down portions of the federal Lanham Act on First Amendment grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to rule against a trademark applicant seeking to register a...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Oral Argument at the Supreme Court Suggests Refusing to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL Trademark Did Not Violate the First Amendment

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster this week, which asks whether refusing to register a trademark that criticizes President Trump violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It seems the...more

49 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide