SCOTUS News

The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear a copyright conflict over fashion design and refused to re-examine the power of the police to enter the home without a search warrant.

in a Order At the justices’ private meeting on May 27, the justices only added one new case to the dossier for the next term: Unicolors, Inc. v H&M Hennes & Mauritz, In which the judge agreed to weigh the copyright law and procedural technical issues caused by the dispute between the Los Angeles fabric designer and fast fashion retailer H&M. Designer Unicolors argued that H&M started using fabric designs it created four years ago in 2015. Unicolors went to court, and the jury awarded it nearly US$900,000 in damages for tort. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the ruling in favor of Unicolors, which led to this appeal. The judge will hear oral arguments on the case in the fall and may make a decision sometime next year.

Two weeks after the ruling Canilla v. Strom Considering that the “community care” principle cannot justify the decision to remove a Rhode Island man and his gun from his home without an arrest warrant, the Supreme Court sent the case of an Iowa man Back to the lower court, according to its decision Canilla.Tuesday’s order came in The case of Kenneth SandersWhile arguing with his girlfriend Karina LaFrancois (Karina LaFrancois), the police came to check on the couple. La Francois talked to the police officers outside and told them that she and her children were also at home, they were “okay” and she would tell Sanders to come out. When La Francois returned to the house, the police saw her daughter crying and decided to go in. After entering the house, the police found a gun; Sanders was charged as a felon with a gun. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Sanders argued that he could not be dealt with with a gun because the police entered the house without an arrest warrant. But these officials argued that the Federal District Court agreed that they were justified under the principle of community care.After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the ruling, Sanders went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court set aside his case until it Canilla.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed on Tuesday to send Sanders’ case back to the Eighth Circuit, but he wrote Separate opinion He emphasized the court’s ruling in it Canilla It is clearly stated that “there is no independent’community care’ principle to allow undocumented entry into the family.” However, Kavanaugh added that this does not mean that the Court of Appeals will inevitably come to the wrong result in the Sanders case. Kavanaugh suggested that when the case goes back to the 8th Circuit, the court can still consider whether to allow the police to enter the home, even without an arrest warrant, because they believe someone in the home is threatened with serious harm.

Also on Tuesday, the court Rejected the request of the medical giant Johnson & Johnson In a lawsuit filed by women, reviewing the US$2 billion in damages against the company, these women claimed that they had contracted after using two Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products: the iconic Johnson & Johnson baby powder and Shower to Shower. Ovarian cancer. Two judges avoided the decision: Judge Samuel Alito, who owns shares of Johnson & Johnson; and Kavanaugh, whose father was the head of the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Perfume Association, which opposed the request for warnings on talc products. s hard work. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the plaintiffs in the case.]

The next meeting of the justices is scheduled for Thursday, June 3. We expect the meeting to be held on Monday, June 7.

This post is Originally published in Howe on the Court.