Supreme Court Lifts Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Stops; The New York Times, September 8, 2025

 Adam Liptak, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Lifts Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Stops

"The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a federal judge’s order prohibiting government agents from making indiscriminate immigration-related stops in the Los Angeles area that challengers called “blatant racial profiling.”

The court’s brief order was unsigned and gave no reasons. It is not the last word in the case, which is pending before a federal appeals court and may again reach the justices.

The court’s three liberal members dissented."

Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees; NPR, June 15, 2020

Nina Totenberg , NPR; Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory To LGBTQ Employees

"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the 1964 Civil Rights Act barring sex discrimination in the workplace protects LGBTQ employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation. 

The vote was 6-3 with conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joining the court's four liberal justices in the majority. 

The opinion is available here."

Longing for the freedom not to hide myself; The Washington Post, April 15, 2018

Ria Tabacco Mar, The Washington Post; Longing for the freedom not to hide myself

"Ria Tabacco Mar is counsel of record for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Charlie Craig, one of the men that Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Colorado bakery, turned away because they are gay, said something about shopping for a wedding cake that stuck with me: “That day,” he said, “I really let my guard down.”

I knew exactly what Craig meant. Not just because he’s my client but because I keep my guard up most days, too — just like nearly every LGBT person I know."

‘We can change the meaning’: Trademarks filed for n-word after Supreme Court decision; Washington Post, August 1, 2017

Justin Wm. Moyer, Washington Post; ‘We can change the meaning’: Trademarks filed for n-word after Supreme Court decision

"Gene Quinn, founder of the intellectual property blog IP Watchdog, said trademarking epithets to limit their use was a “laudable purpose,” but difficult to achieve.

To be maintained, trademarks must be used in interstate commerce, he said, and are awarded in different classes, such as clothing, food or video games. Anyone trying to erase these words from the marketplace would simultaneously need to put them into the marketplace."

After Supreme Court Decision, People Race To Trademark Racially Offensive Words; NPR, July 21, 2017

Ailsa Chang, NPR; After Supreme Court Decision, People Race To Trademark Racially Offensive Words

"CHANG: I wondered about the intent, too, so I set off to find this other guy. And he turned out to be a patent lawyer in Alexandria, Va., Steve Maynard.

Why swastikas?

STEVE MAYNARD: Because the term has an incendiary meaning behind it.

CHANG: Yeah.

MAYNARD: And it's currently used as a symbol of hate. And if we can own the brand, we will be able to control the sale of the brand and the use of the brand as well.

CHANG: Oh, so you're trying to basically grab the swastika so real, actual racists and haters can't grab the swastika as a...

MAYNARD: Correct.

CHANG: ...Registered trademark.

MAYNARD: Correct.

CHANG: But there's a catch. Maynard can't just get the trademark, put it in a drawer and make sure nobody else uses it. To keep a trademark, he actually needs to sell a swastika product. So he will - blankets, shirts, flags. But he plans to make these products so expensive he's hoping no one will ever buy them."

Asian-American Rock Band Denied Trademark For ‘Disparaging’ Name; KDKA.com, April 27, 2017

Julie Grant, KDKA.com; 

Asian-American Rock Band Denied Trademark For ‘Disparaging’ Name

"The government’s position is that the trademark registration program and trademarks generally have not historically served as vehicles for expression; they are meant to identify the source. The law is set forth in the Lanham Act which states that registration can be refused if a trademark is disparaging. Dr. Rooksby believes the provision is too arbitrary and will be invalidated by the court.

According to Rooksby, “I think Simon Tam should win the case. They’ve made a compelling argument that this provision of the trademark law is unconstitutional and this is because it’s too arbitrary. How do you apply it? What is something that’s disparaging?”

While the court weighs the arguments, the band has released an EP titled “The Band Who Must Not Be Named.” A decision is expected by the end of June."

'It's a lot bigger than the band': The Slants challenge ruling rejecting trademark for their name; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 27, 2017

Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; 

'It's a lot bigger than the band': The Slants challenge ruling rejecting trademark for their name

[Kip Currier: Fascinating panel discussing Lee v. Tam case and broader issues of trademark law and free speech. The Slants performed after the panel. I spoke with the defendant, Simon Tam, who was a member of the panel and did a masterful job using "story" to make his points, and he insisted that the rest of the band sign the band poster I bought.]

"“I should be able to say what I want to say that my community doesn’t find offensive,” Mr. Tam said. “At the end of the day, it’s a lot bigger than the band.”

On Thursday, Mr. Tam and his bandmates — he describes their music as 80s-inspired synth pop — spoke at a panel discussion at Duquesne University before an evening performance. It’s part of a six-week tour that has hit clubs, law schools, intellectual property workshops and anime conferences.

The tour is to raise awareness of the ongoing court case, Lee v. Tam. In it, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office appealed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found in Mr. Tam’s favor in December 2015.

Mr. Tam’s original trademark application, made in 2009, was rejected because it was found to violate the Lanham Act, which prohibits a trademark if it “consists of matter which may disparage persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”"

United States: Lee v. Tam: Disparaging Trademarks At The Supreme Court; Mondaq, 11/24/16

Mark Hannemann, Thomas R. Makin, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Patrick Colsher, Joseph Purcell and Eric Lucas, Mondaq; United States: Lee v. Tam: Disparaging Trademarks At The Supreme Court:

"On April 20, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO") petitioned for a writ of certiorari on the following question:

Whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it "[c]onsists of... matter which may disparage... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute," is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."

Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Affect Redskins Trademark; NPR, 9/29/16

Eyder Peralta, NPR; Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Affect Redskins Trademark:

"The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that might decide whether the government can deny Washington's NFL team a trademark because it has deemed the team name is offensive.

The court granted certiorari on Lee V. Tam. If you remember, The Slants, an Asian-American rock band, sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because it refused to trademark their name saying it proved offensive.

In December of last year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that the band's name was private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment."

Don’t Blame Diversity for Distrust; New York Times, 5/20/16

Maria Abascal and Delia Baldassarri, New York Times; Don’t Blame Diversity for Distrust:

"IN June, the Supreme Court is expected to determine the fate of affirmative action in American higher education when it delivers its decision in Fisher v. University of Texas. Responding to Abigail Fisher’s claim that the University of Texas at Austin denied her application fair consideration because she is white, school administrators contend that they need to consider race because a diverse student body enhances students’ educational experiences. Social scientists, though, disagree about the consequences of diversity...

The current debate on affirmative action is playing out in the context of widespread anxieties about the changing face of the nation. Research that links diversity to negative outcomes legitimizes these anxieties. And it doesn’t help that this research has found its way into arguments against affirmative action. But disadvantage and unequal opportunities, rather than diversity, present the biggest obstacles to our getting along. By doing away with affirmative action and limiting access to higher education for blacks and Latinos, we will aggravate the disadvantages these groups face, while accommodating the intolerance of whites toward minorities."

Looking Back; New Yorker, 2/29/16 Issue

Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker; Looking Back:

"Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor. The great Justices of the Supreme Court have always looked forward; their words both anticipated and helped shape the nation that the United States was becoming. Chief Justice John Marshall read the new Constitution to allow for a vibrant and progressive federal government. Louis Brandeis understood the need for that government to regulate an industrializing economy. Earl Warren saw that segregation was poison in the modern world. Scalia, in contrast, looked backward...

Like Nick Carraway, Scalia “wanted the world to be in uniform and at a sort of moral attention forever.” The world didn’t coöperate. Scalia won a great deal more than he lost, and he and his allies succeeded in transforming American politics into a cash bazaar, with seats all but put up for bidding. But even though Scalia led a conservative majority on the Court for virtually his entire tenure, he never achieved his fondest hopes—thanks first to O’Connor and then to Kennedy. Roe v. Wade endures. Affirmative action survives. Obamacare lives. Gay rights are ascendant; the death penalty is not. (These positions are contingent, of course, and cases this year may weaken the Court’s resolve.) For all that Presidents shape the Court, the Justices rarely stray too far from public opinion. And, on the social issues where the Court has the final word, the real problem for Scalia’s heirs is that they are out of step with the rest of the nation. The public wants diversity, not intolerance; more marriages and fewer executions; less money in politics, not more. Justice Scalia’s views—passionately felt and pungently expressed though they were—now seem like so many boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”"

Blacks See Bias in Delay on a Scalia Successor; New York Times, 2/17/16

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Hartman, New York Times; Blacks See Bias in Delay on a Scalia Successor:

"After years of watching political opponents question the president’s birthplace and his faith, and hearing a member of Congress shout “You lie!” at him from the House floor, some African-Americans saw the move by Senate Republicans as another attempt to deny the legitimacy of the country’s first black president. And they call it increasingly infuriating after Mr. Obama has spent seven years in the White House and won two resounding election victories."

The ‘Benefits’ of Black Physics Students; New York Times, 12/17/15

Jedidah C. Isler, New York Times; The ‘Benefits’ of Black Physics Students:

"The fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, known as STEM, are a messy tangle of experiments, misunderstandings, dead ends, insights, collaborations, accidental discoveries, desperation, triumph and the rest of the human saga focused on understanding the world around us.

And physics isn’t just about the dry acquisition, memorization and regurgitation of equations. Think about something as basic to physics as Newton’s laws. Before they can be understood, they must be conceptualized.

Instead of stating “force equals mass times acceleration” and moving on, a good instructor will ply her students with real-life examples of how the application of force to a mass produces acceleration. Students must create relatable examples that allow them to practice and perfect their use of these tools before expanding them out into the larger, untested world.

By suggesting, and sadly litigating, that diversity — and more important, inclusion and equal opportunity — aren’t paramount to the production of new scientific information, we wrongly imply that the most important part of scientific discovery is in the classroom.

The purpose of the classroom is to build a tool kit and to understand what we know in the hopes of uncovering something that we don’t. It’s the door through which we create new physicists. Closing that door to students of color unless they can justify their presence is closing the door to the kinds of creativity that can be shown only after a student has mastered basic skills."

Scalia and Alito: Have You No Sense of Decency, Sirs?; Huffington Post, 5/4/15

Bill Quigley, Huffington Post; Scalia and Alito: Have You No Sense of Decency, Sirs? :

"In the recent marriage equality case, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia argued that marriage equality opens the door to polygamy, underage sex, and incest between brothers and sisters. This is the modern equivalent of McCarthy red-baiting and deserves the same response.

The cruel, illogical, heartless and hateful arguments of Alito and Scalia give considerable support and inspiration to right-wing groups who literally demonize our sisters and brothers and sons and daughters who seek only to marry their same sex partners just like the rest of us.

Alito and Scalia give comfort to the likes of Rush Limbaugh who stated marriage equality leads to incest. To Rick Santorum who compares same sex relationships to bestiality and pedophilia. To the head of ironically named American Decency Association who claimed that gay rights is a satanic attack on the US. And to legions of other people and groups who practice hostility and violence against our sisters and brothers...

As one wise friend pointed out, our country still has the Ku Klux Klan but we do not take their arguments seriously. And there are no respected people openly espousing their arguments on the Supreme Court. No respected person openly argues that blacks and whites should not marry. Nor do any people argue openly that women do not deserve the right to vote. Yet, there are people on the Supreme Court who continue to openly repeat the brutally crude applause lines of right-wing anti-gay hate groups. It is time that stopped.

It is time all people of good will stand up to the haters, especially those on the Supreme Court, and say, "Until this moment, Justices, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness... You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sirs? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?""

Super Bowl, World Series Champs Back Gay Marriage at Court; Associated Press via New York Times, 3/6/15

Associated Press via New York Times; Super Bowl, World Series Champs Back Gay Marriage at Court:

"The New England Patriots are for same-sex marriage. So are the San Francisco Giants.

The reigning baseball and football champions, along with baseball's small-market Tampa Bay Rays, are among the thousands of businesses, religious groups, advocacy organizations and politicians who are filing legal briefs at the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage.

The cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee will be argued April 28, and a decision is expected by early summer...

Rays president Brian Auld said it was important that his team stand up, as well.

"We're a small but visible business and I actually think it's important that we send this signal of inclusion to the entire region," Auld said in a telephone interview Thursday as he watched the Rays' first spring training game in Port Charlotte, Florida.

The team also has participated in the "It Gets Better" project to encourage gay and lesbian teenagers who've been bullied."

Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings; New York Times, 6/26/13

Adam Liptak, New York Times; Supreme Court Bolsters Gay Marriage With Two Major Rulings: "In a pair of major victories for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that married same-sex couples were entitled to federal benefits and, by declining to decide a case from California, effectively allowed same-sex marriages there."

A Sea Change in Less Than 50 Years as Gay Rights Gained Momentum; New York Times, 3/25/13

John Harwood, New York Times; A Sea Change in Less Than 50 Years as Gay Rights Gained Momentum: "The struggle for African-Americans’ rights, symbolized by the bloody 1965 Selma march, is as old as the nation. The effort for American women’s rights began at Seneca Falls, N.Y., more than 150 years ago. The modern fight for gay rights is, by contrast, less than a half-century old, dating from the 1969 Stonewall uprising in New York. But this week, as the Supreme Court hears two landmark cases on same-sex marriage, the speed and scope of the movement are astonishing supporters."