- Supreme Court released a series of controversial decisions last month – and will resume for another term in the fall for another series of cases
- Next term’s cases could determine the future of race-based gerrymandering and whether domestic abusers have a constitutional right to own firearms
- Additionally, the court will rule on whether Trump’s name can be used in a trademark and if President Joe Biden can tax ultra-wealthy Americans 25%
Following a series of landmark Supreme Court rulings, all eyes have turned to the 6-3 conservative majority bench as they prepare for their next term that will begin on the first Monday in October.
CAN A CALIFORNIA LAWYER TRADEMARK THE PHRASE ‘TRUMP TOO SMALL’?
An attorney in California wants to trademark the phrase ‘Trump too small’ for his t-shirts mocking the size of former President Donald Trump’s hands.
Justices agreed last month to take up the trademark dispute Vidal v. Elster in the fall term. The bench will likely hear the case before the new year.
Steve Elster, an employment lawyer and progressive political activist that teaches child actors, sought the trademark in 2018 as a play off of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s crude comments during a 2016 presidential debate suggesting that the size of Trump’s hands indicates he has a small manhood.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application because the word ‘trump’ would be immediately associated with the then-President, not the noun.
Therefore, the office concluded that current law requires that Trump give written consent for his name to be used in the trademark.
The Biden administration wants the Supreme Court to uphold the Trademark Office’s rejection.
COURT WILL DECIDE IF BIDEN CAN IMPLEMENT HIS ‘WEALTH TAX’ ON AMERICA’S ULTRA-RICH
President Biden has proposed a ‘wealth tax’ to implement higher taxes on America’s ultra-wealthy, but a Supreme Court case in the fall could bring those plans to a screeching halt.
The bench agreed to take up in the fall term the case arguing that ‘mandatory repatriation tax’ violates the 16th Amendment.
Moore v. United States will determine if a critical part of the Biden administration’s tax proposals can be implemented or if the brakes will be pumped on taxes aimed at the most wealthy Americans.
Charles and Kathleen Moore incepted the case after they were subjected to paying a $14,729 tax for owning 10 percent of a foreign corporation.
This ‘mandatory repatriation tax’ came after the Moores made a $40,000 investment in an Indian farm-equipment corporation in 2005 but did not receive any other money or payments from the company while it turns a profit every year.
They argued that the Trump-era policy is unconstitutional because their partial ownership did not amount to ‘income’ under the 16th Amendment.
The case is now significant for the Biden team because if the High Court rules in favor of the Moores, it could put the president’s wealth tax proposal and future changes to the taxing of financial market products on ice.
In March 2023, Biden unveiled next year’s budget proposal, which included a plan to tax Americans with wealth over $100 million at 25 percent. Those that fall within this bracket are estimated to makeup just 0.01 percent of Americans.
‘We have to reward work, not just wealth,’ Biden announced when calling for a new minimum tax for America’s richest.
The Moores lost their case before a federal judge and then an appeals court.
The Supreme Court is now taking up the case.
DOES BANNING A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENDER FROM OWNING A GUN VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
The nine justices will determine if people subject to a domestic violence restraining order have a right to own a firearm.
Rahimi v. United States will address an appeal by Texas-based Zackey Rahimi who said he still had a right to own a gun despite a restraining order against him related to a domestic violence offense.
The case was brought up to the High Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit maintained in February that it is unconstitutional for a federal law to prohibit the possession of guns ‘while under a domestic violence restraining order.’
UPCOMING COURT TERM COULD DECIDE HOW TO DETERMINE IF A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IS RACIALLY GERRYMANDERED
South Carolina Republicans are looking to safeguard the map for the state’s 1st congressional district following a lower court decision that the area was racially gerrymandered.
Rep. Nancy Mace’s district in South Carolina includes a long strip of coast along the North and South of Charleston but carves into a U-shape that Democrats claim was intentionally done to exclude populations of black voters in order to keep the district red.
The configuration Macce represents includes a much larger land-mass than in the past.
FISHERMAN COULD BE FORCED TO HELP FUND PROGRAM MONITORING HERRING CATCHES
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could decide if government agencies can force commercial fishermen to contribute funds to pay for a program that monitors the catching of herrings off New England’s coastline.
A Cape May, New Jersey, finishing company appealed to the Supreme Court a lower court decision that created a funding system that requires fishermen to forfeit nearly 20 percent of their pay to fund at-sea monitors.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) rule requires fishermen to curb the bill for observers on their boats.
The program was suspended in April after the NMFS said it ran out of money to pay its own administrative costs. Now fishermen are asking the High Court to review the suit to prevent mandatory monitoring payment from returning in the future.
