The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. on October 7, 2020. Two questions were before the court: the first was whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; the second was whether, as a jury found, Google's use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use. Google reused roughly 11,000 lines of “declaring” code written by Oracle, but rewrote or purchased all other code that provided android’s functionality. Oral arguments addressed whether the 11,000 lines of “declaring” code are protected by copyright, and if so, whether Google’s use of them was “fair.” Michael Risch joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments. Risch is Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and author of an amicus brief in support of Google.

On October 6, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Tanzin v. Tanvir, a case involving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, commonly referred to as RFRA. The issue in this case is whether RFRA permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees. Stephanie Taub joins us to discuss this case’s oral arguments.

On October 5, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Carney v. Adams, a First Amendment case involving a longstanding Delaware state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts. The leftover seats are reserved for the “other major party”, in effect barring members of minor parties and politically unaffiliated persons from joining the state’s three highest courts. Michael Dimino joins us to discuss this case's oral arguments.

On June 30, 2020 the Supreme Court released its decision in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.. In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the lower court, which found that “Booking.com” is not a generic term, and is thus eligible for trademark protection. Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the Court, writing that a website styled “generic.com” does not qualify it for federal trademark protection if the term has meaning to consumers; however, because “Booking.com” does not necessarily signify to consumers an online hotel reservation service, it is therefore not a generic term, and qualifies for protection. Justice Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, and Justice Breyer dissented. Joining us today to discuss this case and its implications is Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University’s School of Law

On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote.Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.

On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to regulate the decisions of presidential electors in Chiafalo v. Washington and its companion case Colorado Department of State v. Baca. The Court held that States may fine--or even replace--electors who vote for a candidate other than the winner of the statewide popular vote. Joining us today to discuss this decision and its implications is Derek Muller, Professor of Law at University of Iowa College of Law.

On June 25, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court issued the opinion, penned by Justice Alito, in the case Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.The court reversed and remanded the case to the courts below, holding that, As applied in this case, U. S. C. § 1252(e)(2)—which limits the habeas review obtainable by a noncitizen detained for expedited removal—does not violate the suspension or due process clauses.Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg Joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.To discuss the case, we have O.H. Skinner, Arizona Solicitor General.

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association. By a vote of 7-2, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was reversed, and the case remanded. Per Justice Thomas's opinion for the Court: "We granted certiorari in these consolidated cases to decide whether the United States Forest Service has authority under the Mineral Leasing Act, 30 U. S. C. §181 et seq., to grant rights-of-way through lands within national forests traversed by the Appalachian Trail. 588 U. S. ___ (2019). We hold that the Mineral Leasing Act does grant the Forest Service that authority and therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit." Justice Thomas's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Breyer, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh in full, and by Justice Ginsburg as to all but Part III-B-2. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Kagan.To discuss the case, we have Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Stephen A. Vaden, General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On July 9, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Jimcy McGirt sought post-conviction relief of three major sexual assault convictions, arguing his crimes occurred in Indian Country and thus were subject to the Indian Major Crimes Act. If that law applies, Mr. McGirt’s crimes should have been prosecuted in federal, rather than state court.The Supreme Court ruled in favor of McGirt, holding that land in northeastern Oklahoma--reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century-- remains a reservation in accordance with a federal statute that gives the federal government jurisdiction to try certain major crimes committed by Indians in Indian country. Therefore, Oklahoma state courts did not have jurisdiction to convict Mr. McGirt. To discuss this case and its implications, we have Andy Lester, partner at Spencer Fane LLP.

On July 8, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey Berru. In a 7-2 ruling, the court held that that a “ministerial exemption” derived from the First Amendment prevents civil courts from adjudicating schoolteacher Morrisey-Berru’s age discrimination claim. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, held that the process of identifying religious ministers within a specific faith group must be largely left up to that particular faith group, resulting in the reversal of the Ninth Circuits determination that Morrissey-Berru was not a minister. Joining us to discuss this case and its implications is Daniel Blomberg, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.