The Supreme Court released several new decisions at the end of last week. While the most covered decision was probably where the Court ruled in favor of the photographer and against Andy Warhol, each decision offers a potentially helpful insight into the interworking of the Court.
Gonzalez v. Google LLC (Anti-Terrorism Act / Section 230)
Listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion syllabus here.
After the Twitter ruling below, the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act. 18 U.S.C. §2333(d). The Court reversed and remanded and decided it did not need to reach the question regarding 47 U.S.C. §230 (“Section 230”).
Per Curiam.
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (Patent)
Listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion syllabus here.
In an antibody patent that helps to reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, Amgen is not permitted to prosecute its patent, as it is too vague. Patents must be written in a way such that “any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention],” which Amgen failed to do here.
Justice Gorsuch for a unanimous Court.
Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith (Copyright)
Listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion syllabus here.
In 1984, Newsweek purchased a photograph of Prince from Goldsmith, it then hired Andy Warhol to reproduce the image. Warhol then later licensed the work in 2016, Goldsmith claimed copyright infringement. Warhol argues the work is sufficiently “transformative,” the Court disagrees, reasoning that the “purpose and character” factor in the four-part “fair-use” review cuts against Warhol.
Note: I recommend reading Justice Kagan’s dissent, it is a very well-written opinion that provides an counter to her typical ally’s majority.
Justice Sotomayor delivered the Opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts joined.
Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (Anti-Terrorism Act)
Listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion syllabus here.
Respondents failed to state a claim against the social media companies under the Anti-Terrorism Act (18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2)) as they fail to sufficiently show that the companies aided and abetted ISIS.
Justice Thomas delivered the Opinion of the Court. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion.
Ohio Adjutant General’s Dept. v. FLRA (Federal Labor Relations Act)
Listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion syllabus here.
The Federal Labor Relations Act has jurisdiction over an “agency” of the federal government. A State National Guard qualifies as a federal agency under the statute when it applies to dual-status technicians, employed by both the National Guard and a federal military branch.
Justice Thomas delivered the Opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Gorscuh joined.
Polselli v. IRS (Tax Summons)
Listen to the Supreme Court’s opinion syllabus here.
When the IRS issues a summons related to the collection of an assessment, the IRS only needs to provide notice if the delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in the account. Therefore, no notice is required when it issued against a third-party, such as a law firm or business entity.
Justice Gorsuch for a unanimous Court.