Posted by Katherine Gurski.
The Supreme Court had spent an hour debating when a design of clothing becomes eligible to be copyrighted, and this issue is particularly a problem in the cheerleading uniform industry. Varsity Brands Inc., which is a leading producer of cheerleader uniforms, claims that its designs are unique and original to the uniforms. The company sued another leading manufacturer, Star Athletica, for copyright infringement back in 2010. Star Athletica responded by claiming that the striped and zigzag designs were signals to the public that those wearing the uniforms were cheerleaders. Star Athletica accused Varsity of “improperly seeking a century-long copyright monopoly on cheerleader-uniform designs” (Kendall).
Chief Justice John Roberts responded to this argument by giving an example and comparing the issue at hand to a lunchbox. Roberts stated, “The design on a lunchbox doesn’t make the lunchbox a lunchbox. It’s still a lunchbox. But the design on a cheerleading uniform is what makes it a cheerleading uniform, as opposed to a plain dress.” However, from another perspective, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg believed the designs to just be “two-dimensional artwork.” The designs are not crucial to the uniforms because they are simply printed on.
Fashion designers support Varsity Brands by stating that copyrights protect creativity. On the other hand, library associations and costume hobbyists support Star by stating that copyrighting extensively for just the appearance of an item could potentially harm creativity and put a limit to expression.
There is no ruling to the issue yet, and one will be expected by the end of June; but a few justices have commented on the potentially lasting consequences that the case could result in. For example, Justice Stephen Breyer stated, “If suddenly in this case we say that dresses are copyrightable, and they are because every one of them has some design, perhaps we’ll double the price of women’s clothes.” Justice Sotomayor also commented on the consequences by stating, “We are now going to use copyright law to kill the knockoff industry.”
Katherine is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.
Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.” However, this may not be correct.
“Kathryn Keena, a county prosecutor representing Minnesota, suggested some rural areas may have only one judge on call, making it too burdensome to seek a warrant every time. She said even if a warrant were procured, a driver could still refuse to take the test and face lesser charges for obstruction of a warrant than for violating drunken driving test laws.”
Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.
The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.