There was no shortage of action on the Supreme Court's business docket this Term. The Court decided major cases on interstate commerce, intellectual property, and other topics affecting business.
The Court issued a pair of decisions that granted States significant authority over out-of-state businesses. The Court held that California could prohibit in-state sales of pork products from pigs raised in inhumane conditions, even though the vast majority of pork production occurs elsewhere. The Court also rejected a due process challenge to a Pennsylvania statute that required businesses to consent to state court jurisdiction as a condition of registering to do business there.
The Court issued a pair of important trademark decisions, reining in the territorial scope of the U.S. trademark laws, and allowing the distiller of Jack Daniel's whiskey to sue the maker of a "Bad Spaniels" chew toy for infringement. In the patent arena, the Court restricted pharmaceutical companies' ability to obtain broad patents for "genus" claims that cover entire classes of antibodies. And in the copyright sphere, the Court rejected a "fair use" claim over an Andy Warhol painting of Prince used as a commemorative magazine cover.
Big Tech scored a win. The Court rejected a lawsuit accusing Twitter, Facebook, and Google of aiding and abetting terrorist attacks by not doing enough to prevent terrorist groups from using their social media platforms. Even so, the Court reserved for another day a more controversial issue—the scope of immunity that social media companies enjoy when third parties use their platforms to post harmful content.
Outside the business docket, the Court's Term will be most remembered for its decision striking down affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. While that case specifically concerned higher education, cases addressing affirmative action in the business arena are surely not far behind. The decision will likely inspire future challenges to other affirmative action programs, including programs at businesses that receive federal funding or are subject to other antidiscrimination laws. The decision will also stoke new discussions over how best to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
The Court welcomed a new member to the bench, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has already earned a reputation for her incisive questioning at oral argument. The Court also set a new benchmark for the deliberate pace of its decisions, handing down a full half of its rulings within the last month of the Term.
We are pleased to present the thirteenth annual MoloLamken Supreme Court Business Briefing. We have identified cases with the greatest potential impact on a wide range of businesses. For each, we have distilled the facts and holdings to a concise summary and highlighted why the decision matters to business. Our aim is to allow busy people to stay current on the Supreme Court's docket and understand the potential impact of its decisions with a minimum of time and effort. We hope you find it informative.
Read the 2023 ML Supreme Court Business Briefing.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
