7 Big US Supreme Court Decisions Coming Soon

Hold onto your hats. Or your hair if you don’t wear hats. Or your ears if you are bald. Or your nose if you don’t have ears. The United States Supreme Court is going to be issuing some decisions in the coming weeks that are almost certainly going to ruffle some feathers. Hold onto your feathers if you are a bird.

Student Loan Cancellation

The Court is set to rule on President Biden’s student debt forgiveness program. Billions of dollars of student loan debts have already been forgiven, but the Court could put an end to any more cancellations unless Congress approves the program.

States are challenging the constitutionality of Biden’s action, which he ostensibly implemented as part of the federal government’s COVID-19 response. They claim the program exceeds the scope of Executive branch power under the separation of powers doctrine.

The case is Nebraska v. Biden.

Affirmative Discrimination

Two cases challenging racial preferences in college admission are before the Court. One is a lawsuit against the University of North Carolina. The other is against Harvard University. One is a public school; the other is private.

Both lawsuits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions. Both claim that the practice unconstitutionally discriminates against Asian Americans. The Harvard case claims that the practice harms white applicants as well.

The case against Harvard could be decided narrowly as a matter of statutory interpretation. The University of North Carolina case is more likely to address the Equal Protection issue head-on.

The cases are Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University and Students for Fair Admission v. University of North Carolina.

Same-Sex Wedding Websites

At issue in this case is whether a website designer can refuse to create a website for a same-sex wedding. Colorado law prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations. The designer claims the law, as applied, violates the First Amendment because it compels speech.

The case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.

Whiskey Dog Toys

Reporters have been having a laugh riot with this one, but the legal issue is no joke. It could have far-reaching consequences.

Basically, a company marketed and sold a dog toy shaped and labeled to look very similar to a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle, calling it “Bad Spaniel’s.” The question presented is where the Court will draw the line between trademark rights and free speech.

The case is Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products.

Big Tech Freedom from Accountability

Although Section 230 of the ironically named “Communications Decency Act” is not limited to big tech companies, they were unquestionably its primary intended beneficiaries. Basically, the Act insulates Facebook, America Online, web hosting companies, and other online service providers from liability for providing a forum for third parties to defame or commit otherwise actionable torts against other people.

At issue in this case is the scope of the Act, specifically, whether it applies to the algorithms that companies like Google and YouTube use to promote content to users.

The case is Gonzales v. Google, LLC.

Stealing from the Poor in Minnesota

94-year-old grandmother and Minnesota homeowner Geraldine Tyler owed about $15,000 for unpaid property taxes on her home, including penalties, interests and costs. Hennepin County, Minnesota seized her home and sold it for about $40,000. Rather than apply the proceeds of the sale to the amount due and return the balance to Geraldine, Hennepin County pocketed the unowed cash and refused to return it.

Minnesota is one of several states that allow their governments to keep all the money when they seize and sell property to satisfy a debt owed to the state. Some say keeping money that is not owed is tantamount to plunder, or at at least a Takings Clause violation.

The case is Tyler v. Hennepin County.

Transformative Use: Warhol, Prince, and Goldsmith

Photographer Lynn Goldsmith took a photograph of Prince. Andy Warhol proceeded to duplicate the photograph and use it in one of his own works, like he did with a Campbell’s soup can years ago. The photograph is protected by copyright. Warhol did not get the copyright owner’s permission.

In a series of cases, courts have been developing a “transformative use doctrine” of copyright law. Basically, this is the principle that making a modification of a copyright-protected work and/or repurposing it in some way is very likely to be fair use. This notion creates some tension with the provisions of the Copyright Act that give copyright owners the exclusive right to create derivative works based on their works. The Act defines a derivative work as one that is based on or modifies an existing one.

The case furnishes the Court with an opportunity to bring some sorely-needed clarity to copyright law in the area of fair use.

(Shameless plug: If you are interested in keeping abreast of developments in copyright and trademark law, check out my other blog, The Cokato Copyright Attorney .)

The case is Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith.

Okay, you can let go of your hat, hair, ears or nose now. If you are a bird, let go of your feathers . . . and don’t do what you are thinking of doing to this article.