First Amendment

So you can register 'scandalous' and 'immoral' trademarks -- now what? Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should do it.

For now, the PTO will be forced to register just about any mark thrown its way, regardless of content.

Important First Amendment ruling from the Supreme Court is probably right, unfortunately.

A quick tour of conservative social media shows a lot of giddy excitement over an outrageous, laughable multimillion-dollar verdict.

It would appear the White House thinks violent extremism is a feature, not a bug.

The best response to speech we don’t like is more speech, not threats of lawsuits which are often only available to the wealthiest among us to threaten others into silence.

This is a big deal.

There are many contemporary threats to First Amendment values, the most alarming being the current president.

* Even Jonathan Adler, no fan of Obamacare, can’t support the Justice Department’s shift of position in the ongoing Affordable Care Act litigation out of Texas. [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason]

* John Lauro continues to protect the reputation of his client Wendi Adelson, ex-wife of murdered law professor Dan Markel. [2paragraphs]

* Meanwhile, another player in the Dan Markel case — David Oscar Markus, counsel to Charlie Adelson — argues that Attorney General William Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made the right call on obstruction of justice. [The Hill]

* Speaking of the Mueller investigation, Brianne Gorod points out that Congress has the power to ask the district court to release grand jury transcripts and related information from the case. [Take Care]

* Whether or not you agree with Senator Marco Rubio’s proposed constitutional amendment to fix the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices, it’s not a bad idea to think about possible ways to restructure SCOTUS — as Gordon Renneisen does here. [Law360]

* Meanwhile, as the Court grapples with the cross-shaped war memorial case this Term, Rick Garnett wonders: can a liberal state favor one religion over others? [First Things via PrawfsBlawg]

* Legal tech M&A activity continues apace, with vLex’s acquisition of Justis. [Artificial Lawyer]

Forcing free and independent individuals to pay for religious displays violates the First Amendment.

Justice Thomas uses a sympathetic plaintiff to take a dump on the case law.

I like it when police try their cease-and-desist intimidation tactics on somebody who understands their rights.

Are words that encourage others to commit suicide protected speech? The state of Massachusetts says no.

The gray area between 'extortion' and 'criminal' extortion.

Things are about to get real in Delaware.

If citizens are "repulsed" by the monument it does not have to stay.

The state possess an inherent power to encourage commerce, but how far can that power be exerted over the moral values of consumers?

* Divorce lawyer lays out how this Jeff Bezos divorce will go down. [VICE]

* Michael Cohen is going to testify to Congress, so that’s a new circus to look forward to. [CNBC]

* Florida’s newly passed law allowing felons to vote after they’ve served their sentence may have an exploitable flaw. A former Florida Supreme Court justice notes that the law requires the potential voter to satisfy their complete sentence, which might include fines or restitution payments that no one ever expects the convict to pay off. Retired Justice James E.C. Perry says that makes this “akin to a poll tax.” This is why Florida can’t have nice things. [ABC Action News]

* For those unfamiliar with “Ag-Gag” legislation, it’s a family of lobbyist concocted laws that ban environmentalists and animal rights activists from reporting on conditions in factory farms. If that sounds like a First Amendment violation to you, a federal court in Iowa agrees. [NPR]

* Vegas investigators want Ronaldo’s DNA in a rape case. [Fox News]

* The Russian government is demanding answers to why Natalia Veselnitskaya has been charged. Not sure they realize that their agitation only suggests Mueller’s right. [Reuters]

* Senator Ted Cruz has proposed a constitutional amendment that would set term limits for those in the Senate (two six-year terms) and House of Representatives (three two-year terms) because “[t]erm limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C.” [Business Insider]

* Speaking of terms, the grand jury’s 18-month term in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was set to expire this past weekend, but Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the D.C. District Court extended it for up to six months since the jurors’ work is “in the public interest.” [CNN]

* The federal judiciary has enough money to stay afloat until January 11, and then, per a spokesman for the U.S. courts, “[i]t’s really a judge-by-judge, court-by-court determination” when the courts start operating under the Antideficiency Act “to support the exercise of Article III judicial power.” [Fortune]

* Hot on the heels of its decision that a ban on racist trademark registrations violated the First Amendment, the Supreme Court will decide whether a similar ban on “scandalous” marks is unconstitutional as well. [Law360]

* Do we need a Rooney Rule for federal law clerks? According to Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California, it might be the solution to increasing the amount of diversity — of people of color and of law school representation — in the clerks’ candidate pool. We’ll have more on this later today. [National Law Journal]

Elon Musk probably didn't defame anybody when he was being a jerk on Twitter.