Source: https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2019/04/16/oral-arguments-4-15-19/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:48:19+00:00

Document:
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in six cases this week. One of the most closely-watched cases was Iancu v. Brunetti, which will determine whether the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks runs afoul of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
The dispute arises from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal of Erik Brunetti’s application to register the mark “FUCT” for his clothing line. The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding that the Lanham Act’s scandalous-marks provision is unconstitutional.
The appeals court relied on Matal v. Tam, in which the Court struck down the federal ban on registering disparaging trademarks, holding that it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” The Supreme Court will again get the last word.
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust: The Court must resolve a circuit split regarding whether the Due Process Clause prohibits states from taxing trusts based on trust beneficiaries’ in-state residency. Four state courts have held that the Due Process Clause allows states to tax trusts based on trust beneficiaries’ in-state residency. Five state courts, including two state supreme courts, have concluded that the Due Process Clause forbids these taxes.
United States v. Davis: The Court must decide the following: Whether the subsection-specific definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3) (B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using, or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague. The Court has previously struck down similarly worded residual clauses as unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2014).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.