Kaelan Deese of the Washington Examiner reports on major cases the U.S. Supreme Court will address when it returns to work in the fall.
As the Supreme Court winds down from its explosive term, the justices have already promised to consider an array of cases this fall that will leave a lasting impact on legal precedent. …
… [T]he Supreme Court agreed to consider a Second Amendment case that challenges the scope of its landmark decision last summer that held gun regulations should be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” …
… The justices agreed to hear a Biden administration appeal in defense of a federal law that blocks people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing a firearm.
A Texas-based man, Zackey Rahimi, is appealing his conviction of violating that federal law, arguing the Supreme Court landmark decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen last summer means the federal law also violates the Second Amendment. …
… The Supreme Court agreed to consider if a California attorney has a First Amendment right to trademark the phrase “Trump too small” for use on T-shirts mocking the former president.
The Biden administration asked the justices to uphold the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s rejection of attorney Steve Elster’s application because federal law doesn’t allow trademarks to use a person’s name without first receiving consent. …
… The justices will also consider a tax case that could put the fate of the Biden administration’s “wealth tax” and other future tax proposals in jeopardy.
The case challenges the “mandatory repatriation tax” as a violation of the 16th Amendment. If found unconstitutional, it could pump the brakes on President Joe Biden’s tax proposal aimed at taxing the U.S.’s ultrawealthy.
The case centers on Charles and Kathleen Moore, who made an almost $40,000 investment into an Indian corporation in 2005. They did not receive any money or other payments from the company, despite the corporation making a profit every year.
