Doctrine or keep it. Chief Justice Roberts we hear argument first this morning ase 221219, relentless versus the department of commerce. Mr. Martinez. Oral argument of roman marti on behalf of the petitioners martinez mr. Chief e, and may it please the court for too long, chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation it should be overruled for three ass. First, chevron violates the constitution article iii empowers judges to what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal ates using their best and independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates interpretive auory from courts to to adopt inferior agencycourts constructions that are issued fotical or policy reasons. In doing so, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of cong it mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach. And by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens individual liberty. Chevron allates the apa. The most straightforward
Chief Justice Roberts well hear argument first this mni in case 221219, relentless versus the dept of commerce. Mr. Martinez. Oral argument of Roman Martinez on behalf of the petitioners martinez mr. Chief justice, and may it please tht for too long, chevron has distorted the dial process and undermined statutory interpretation. It should orruled for three reasons. First, chevron violates the constitution. Articliiempowers judges to say what the law is. It requires them to int federal statutes using their be a independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reall Interpretive Authority from courts to es, and it forces courts to adopt inferior Agency Construction are issued for political or policy reasons. In doing so, chevron blocks judges from serving as fl agents of congress. It mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach. And by removing key ec on executive power, it threatens individuerty. Chevron also violates the apa. The most straighrd reading of section 706 re
Ruli. Argum an hour and 30 minut we will hear argumentst to fire a rifle fitted with a bump stock, the shooter faces his trigger finger on the builtin finger ledge and uses his other hand to press the rifle forward. As lg rwardreure, the rifle will fire bullets and will empty a 100 round magazine in about 10 sends. Those weapons do exactly what congress meant to prohibit when it enacted the prohibition on machine guns, and those weapons are mainguns because they satisfbo parts of the definition. First, a rifle with a bumptock fire isa function of the tgg act by the ooter starts a firing sequence. With a semi automatic rifle, it fires one shot for each actio of the trigger because the shooter ha to pull and release the trigger for every shot. A bump stock eminates those movements and allows shooter to fire many shots with one act, a forward push. A respondent says a separate function of th■cts■4 trigger has every time the trigger on a traditional moved backwards and releases the ham
This case involves a dog toy that copies jack daniels trademark and associates its whiskey. After a fourday trial the District Court found infringeme and delusion. They erroneously reversed the holdings. As to infringent the circuit didnt find the likelihood of confusion. It instead reversed by applying an exception to the act that the Second Circuit in rogers versus grimaldi invented. Under rogers inexpressive work is allowed to confuse asong as the use is relevant and not exicly misleading. But the act has no exception for expressive works. Itar using marks for any goods when liky to cause confusion as to sponsorship or approval. Arstic element has nothing to do with confusion and both plit and explicit uses c confuse. Nodoes constitutional avoidance justi rogers. Rogers doesnt possibly construe any text a there are no first endment issue as to avoid. A trademark Search Engine Property Rights that necessarily stct speech to protect investntn goodwill and event consumer confusion. And
Doctrine or keep it. Chief Justice Roberts well hear argument first this morning in case 221219, relentless versus the department of commerce. Mr. Martinez. Oral argument of Roman Martinez on behalf of the petitioners martinez mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court for too long, chevron has distorted the judicial process and undermined statutory interpretation. It should be overruled for three reasons. First, chevron violates the constitution. Article iii empowers judges to say what the law is. It requires them to interpret federal statutes using their best and independent judgment. Chevron undermines that duty. It reallocates Interpretive Authority from courts to agencies, and it forces courts to adopt inferior agency constructions that are issued for political or policy reasons. In doing so, chevron blocks judges from serving as faithful agents of congress. It mandates judicial bias and encourages agency overreach. And by removing key checks on executive power, it threatens i