In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the Supreme Court is considering "Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act."IP expert Adam Mathews joined us to break down the case and oral argument.Featuring:Adam Mathews, State Representative, Ohio, and Attorney, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast is a project of the Federalist Society for Law & Public Policy Studies. This audio broadcast series provides expert commentary on U.S. Supreme Court cases as they are argued and issued. The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. We hope these broadcasts, like all of our programming, will serve to stimulate discussion and further exchange regarding important current legal issues. View our entire SCOTUScast archive at http://www.federalistsociety.org/SCOTUScast

News

Politics

On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. United States. The Court considered whether, and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.Please join us as we break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring:Mr. Steven Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Trump v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California. At issue was whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislation.Join us to hear Nancie Marzulla and Jayson Parsons break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Ms. Nancie Marzulla, Partner, Marzulla LawMr. Jayson Parsons, Associate, Rutan & Tucker LLP

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On April 16th, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Devillier v. Texas. At issue was whether owners of property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 adversely affected by the flood evacuation barrier constructed by Texas should be permitted on remand to pursue their takings clause claims through the cause of action available under Texas law.Join us to hear Prof. Ilya Somin break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School and B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

Devillier v. Texas - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McIntosh v. United States. At issue was whether a district court’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B)’s requirement to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing bars a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review.Join us to hear Stefan Cassella break down the decision and discuss its potential ramifications.Featuring:Mr. Stefan Cassella, CEO, Asset Forfeiture Law, LLC

McIntosh v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. At issue was whether U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in holding that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.Join us to hear Prof. Adam Pritchard break down the decision and its potential ramifications.Featuring:Prof. Adam Pritchard, Frances and George Skestos Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Download our free app to listen on your phone