A new Economist/YouGov poll found that 57% of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of the tariffs ruling and 23% disapprove. For more on the survey, see the Morning Reads section below.
At the Court
On Wednesday, the court released its opinions in Villarreal v. Texas, in which it affirmed a lower court ruling stating that a trial court did not err when it allowed a defendant to meet with his lawyers during an overnight break in testimony but barred them from “managing” his ongoing testimony, and The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal, in which it held that a government contractor cannot immediately appeal an order rejecting its immunity claim.
Also on Wednesday, the court heard argument in Pung v. Isabella County, on the constitutionality of tax foreclosure sales.
Tomorrow, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EST.
On Monday, the court will hear argument in United States v. Hemani, on whether a federal statute that prohibits gun possession by users of illegal drugs violates the Second Amendment. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
Morning Reads
Majorities of Americans want lower tariffs and approve of the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s tariffs
David Montgomery, YouGov
As noted above, a new Economist/YouGov poll looked at Americans’ reactions to the tariffs ruling, and found that a majority of Americans “strongly or somewhat approve of the Supreme Court’s decision.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the survey showed that reactions varied by political party – “Most Democrats and Independents approve of the decision, but only 27% of Republicans do, while 51% of Republicans disapprove.” There was a similar partisan gap in the responses to a question about President Donald Trump reimposing the tariffs. “23% of Americans – including 3% of Democrats, 13% of Independents, and 53% of Republicans – favor Trump re-imposing tariffs using a different law, while 54% of Americans oppose this.”
Fresh Off a Supreme Court Loss, Trump Could Face New Challenges on Tariffs
Ana Swanson and Tony Romm, The New York Times
Soon after the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump announced that he would use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to begin rebuilding his system of tariffs. “But that tactic could soon see its own challenges,” because some legal experts question whether the president actually has the authority under Section 122, which allows for temporary duties to address “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,” to target “nearly every import from around the world,” according to The New York Times. “No president has invoked Section 122 before, so it’s unclear how a court would rule on its use.”
Trump policy allowing swift deportations to alternate countries rejected by US judge
Nate Raymond, Reuters
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy “on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration had adopted an unlawful policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own without providing them a chance to object and raise concerns for their safety,” according to Reuters. Murphy “paused his ruling from taking effect for 15 days to allow the administration time to pursue an appeal.” The Supreme Court will likely have the final say in the case, Reuters reported, and it has already intervened in the case twice, first lifting “a preliminary injunction Murphy issued in April protecting the due process rights of migrants facing deportation to third countries and later clear[ing] the way for eight men to be sent to South Sudan.”
The Up-Until-Now Missing Audio of SCOTUS Opinion Announcements from OT24
Fix the Court
Supreme Court watchers are likely aware that the court does not provide a live audio feed from the courtroom during opinion announcements. Instead, the court releases these audio files to the National Archives at a later date, typically around the start of the following term. But the audio files from last term did not appear in October and were, in fact, not available online until Fix the Court released them on Wednesday. Fix the Court reported that it was able to obtain the files at the National Archives on Tuesday, Feb. 24, “after much back and forth with the staff there.”
Justice Samuel Alito Won’t Hang Up His Robes Anytime Soon
David Lat, Bloomberg Law
In a column for Bloomberg Law, David Lat highlighted speculation that Justice Samuel Alito will soon announce his retirement and explained why he does not believe Alito is going anywhere. “Alito remains energetic and engaged as a justice. He continues to produce solid and smart, if not particularly stylish, opinions—and he’s known around One First Street for being one of the least clerk-dependent justices,” Lat wrote, adding that “Alito is still years away from the ages that justices have retired at in recent years.”
On Site
Opinion Analysis
Justices send litigation about tainted baby food back to state court
Tuesday’s decision in The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist resolved a technical problem about what to do when district courts make a mistaken ruling about their own jurisdiction. The final word – Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion for a unanimous court – says that the lack of jurisdiction by the trial court means the whole case goes back to state court.
Argument Analysis
Justices reveal little about whether the deadline for removing cases to federal court can be excused
When a plaintiff files a lawsuit in state court asserting a claim that could be brought in federal court, federal law gives the defendant 30 days to remove the case to federal court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard argument on whether a district court can extend this time limit, but the hour of discussion revealed little about where the justices stood.
Thaler v. Perlmutter
You’ve likely heard of disputes over tech companies using copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence systems, but what about battles over whether work produced autonomously by AI systems can be copyrighted? At the justices private conference on Friday, they are expected to address a pending petition for review on the latter issue, which aims to change the U.S. Copyright Office’s approach to AI authors.
The petition in Thaler v. Perlmutter comes from Stephen Thaler, a computer scientist who, as he puts it, “develops, owns, and applies AI systems capable of generating creative output including visual art in the absence of a direct contribution from a traditional human author.” In 2018, Thaler filed an application for copyright protection for one such piece of AI-generated art, an image titled “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” On the application, Thaler “disclosed that the submission lacked traditional human authorship” because it had been “autonomously created” by an AI system, but he further explained that he owned “the AI that generated the AI-Generated Work and should thus be the owner of any copyright,” according to the petition.
In August 2019, the Copyright Office declined to register the copyright, citing its policy against copyrighting works without a human author, which applies even when a human created the AI system that then created the work in question. When it refused to reconsider this decision, Thaler sued the Copyright Office, contending that its policy on human authorship must be changed.
The lower courts sided with the Copyright Office, upholding its denial of Thaler’s application and rejecting Thaler’s claims about the office’s authorship requirements. While the Copyright Act of 1976 “does not define the word ‘author,’” it’s still clear that machines are not authors under the law, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, “[b]ecause many of the Copyright Act’s provisions make sense only if an author is a human being,” such as references to an author’s lifespan and death.
In his Supreme Court petition, Thaler contended that the Copyright Office’s authorship policy creates “a chilling effect on anyone else considering using AI creatively” and works against the goal of copyright protection – “namely, the creation and dissemination of creative works.” The justices must get involved, Thaler continued, because the question of how to apply copyright laws to AI systems “has never been more economically and artistically relevant.”
Initially, the federal government waived its right to respond to Thaler’s petition for review, but the court requested a response. In the government’s brief, filed in January, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to deny Thaler’s petition, arguing that the D.C. Circuit’s decision was correct and that no federal court of appeals has rejected the Copyright Office’s human authorship requirement. Under the office’s policy, creators can still use AI to create a copyrightable work so long as they remain in control of the final product, Sauer added. “AI can be a creative tool like many others at an artist’s disposal—such as guitar pedals in sound recordings or cameras in photography.”
The justices are set to consider this petition for the first time on Friday. In April 2023, the Supreme Court denied review in a similar case that Thaler brought against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over its refusal to issue patents for AI-generated inventions.
SCOTUS Quote
JUSTICE ALITO: “What is the – what sorts of personal property do you think the government has to go after first before it goes after the – the house?”
MR. ELLISON: “Well, in this case, with a tax debt of about 2200 bucks, it could have been the Peloton bike that was in the house.”
JUSTICE ALITO: “You think a Peloton bike today is worth $2,000?”
(Laughter.)
MR. ELLISON: “Well –“
JUSTICE ALITO: “If you go on Facebook Marketplace and you try to sell a Peloton bike today for $2,000, I don’t think you’re going to be very successful.”
The post SCOTUStoday for Thursday, February 26 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.