Monday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court will kick off its April session, the last of the term, with oral arguments in two cases. First up is Iancu v. Brunetti, in which the court will consider a First Amendment challenge to the ban on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. Megan Carpenter previewed the case for this blog. Lauren Kloss and Nayanthika Ramakrishnan have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Subscript Law offers a graphic explainer for the case. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that “[r]ecent history suggests the justices will be skeptical about the prohibition,” noting that “[t]wo years ago, the court unanimously threw out a similar ban on disparaging trademarks, saying that provision violated the First Amendment.”

This morning’s second argument is in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, which asks whether securities investors can sue a company for failing to provide adequate information for the investors to use in evaluating the price of a tender offer. Ronald Mann had this blog’s preview. Ushin Hong and Russell Mendelson preview the case for Cornell.

For USA Today, Richard Wolf charts the “convoluted decision-making process” behind Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, which sparked a challenge that the justices will consider next week when they hear oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York. Adam Liptak looks at the case for The New York Times.

For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that early Friday morning, a divided “Supreme Court stepped in to lift a stay on an execution in Alabama, the latest case to signal a tougher position against granting last-minute reprieves to condemned inmates.” This blog’s coverage comes from Amy Howe, in a post that was first published at Howe on the Court. At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Will Baude writes that Friday’s ruling, coupled with other recent orders and decisions in death-penalty cases, suggests that “the Court is attempting to signal a significant shift in how it handles death-penalty litigation, but it is struggling over how to carry it out, and also likely divided over whether that shift is a good idea in any event.”

Briefly:

• At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery looks at “two cases to watch” during the April sitting.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!