Skip to main content

tv   Review of Supreme Court Oral Argument in Patent Trademark v.  CSPAN  May 4, 2020 7:10pm-8:01pm EDT

7:10 pm
have a pri existing trademark like kodak or xerox or like teflon in the old days and someone goes along and -- >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> after the oral argument wrapped up, the national cons institution centerest haad a committee reviewing the supreme court's case. dealing with whether a company can trademark a generic term by adding dot-com to it. this is 50 minutes. >> hi, i'm jeffrey rosen, the president of the national constitution center, which is the beautiful building that you see behinds me. it's located in philadelphia in independence mall, right across from independence hall where the constitution was drafted. like c-span, it's a private non
7:11 pm
prift with an inspiring mission from congress. to december sim nate information about the constitution on a non-partisan basis to increase awarrens and understanding of the constitution among the american people. justice holmes once said of the constitution, it is an experiment as all of life is an experiment. the arguments that you've just heard are technical. the kind that law proimples and journalists and citizens often don't listen to closely but we just had the privilege of
7:12 pm
hearing them live is -- so our job in the next hour is to unpack them and understand as thoughtfully and as nonpartisan a spirit as possible what the competing arguments are so that ultimately you, c-span watchers and friends from across the country can evaluate the arguments for yourself. i do want you to do some homework after this show, which is to read the briefs in the case. go to the supreme court remember site. supreme you'll find the briefs on the home page under the name of the case and after our discussion, you can really dig into the arguments on both sides. make sure you read the briefs on both sides. with that introduction, it's my great pleasure to introduce three of america's leading trademark scholars who will join us today. the frank stanton professor of the first amendment at harvard
7:13 pm
law school. she filed a brief of trademark scholars on behalf of neither party in the case. margaret duncan filed a breach in support of respond ants in the case. she is an ajugt professor at chicago school of law and filed a brief on the international school of law association of economic and core religion is legal director at the electronic frontier foundation, which filed a brief in support of the petitioner in rebecca, margaret and core religion, welcome to all of you and thank you some for joining. > thank you, jeff. rebecca. let's begin with you. first of all, congratulations, your brief was cited several
7:14 pm
times during oral arguments. the brief you filed on behalf of neither party but can you please, as concisely as possible, tell us what in case was about. what are the main legal arguments on both sides and what are the stakes in the case? >> so i think the core question -- the fact nt that consumers are likely to recognize something that is a generic term for a group of goods or services but has a prominent provider so people are likely to associate the provider with the generic's term. at what point does that become some sort of forcible trademark right? there's a counter vailing concern that at a certain point,
7:15 pm
if somebody really is associated with a term, then there's the potential for confusion if others you us the term. is a good because through marketplace success and advertising, it has developed a reputation but it also allows you to make bookings online, which is prumple what you would expect from any online servation service and so having control over presents at least the potential from people doing other things like it's a significant judgment call whether we should give basically a tiny little right and then see where the right goes in specific cases or whether we should say no, the game is not worth the candle,
7:16 pm
the risk that will be aserled anti-competitively are so great that it shouldn't get a tiny little right at all. this is a big question in american intellectual law generally. jeff: issue -- thank you so much for that. so i hear you say this question of by putting dot-com at the end of a flame whether you should be able to trademark it. we heard in the argument a lot of discussion about what the relevant legal source of north was. on the one hand the trademark office argued that this case called goodyear from the 1880's said that generally you can't trademark a generic term like rubber. on the other hand, the respondent said this federal law passed in the 1940's and amended in the 19 80's came up with a different test, which was is --
7:17 pm
the primary significance test. would people see it as a generic phrase or as something associated with a particular brand. those are the kinds of arguments we have to unpack and i'm going to begin in the order ma the courts did. friends watching on c-span, the first party is called the petitioner. e second one is called the respondent. here the petitioner was represented by ericka ross and the rerespondsent was we're looking -- lucky to have core religion, who filed a brief on behalf of the petitioner. so glad you're here and i want you to distill the essence of the petitioner's arguments as you understood it at the ends of the case. ericka cross -- ross summed up the claim that a generic term
7:18 pm
can't be turned into a particular trademark by showing that a number of respondent think it's associated with a particular mark and she said the wellmont question that the secondary meaning of the way people understand it is irrelevant. it's never trade marketable by addsing something like dot-com at the end of that name. distill for us what, in your view, the petitioner's core argument was? >> i'll do my best but i would be remiss if i didn't note, it was interesting that first of all we had two women arguing on either side in this historic moment, which is exciting. and then this panel is also all women and i think that's noteable and exciting and worth acknowledging. jeff: yes. >> so into the -- i think the
7:19 pm
key to the petitioner's argument is this. it says that under goodyear, law from 1888, it's pretty straightforward that if something is generic that's it. full stop, we're done. you don't have to get into the primary significance test necessarily. that is something you'd think about talking about whether something is descriptive or not. but that's not what we have here. two generic terms. dot-com purely generic. booking fully generic. we don't have to get into surveys and all of this stuff. the p.t.o. can make a decision why this is a purely generic term and we're done with the arguments and that's essentially what happened here and i think what was interesting to me is -- as i was hearing the justices really struggle for a rule. i don't know that they're comfortable saying that goodyear
7:20 pm
controls for the internet but not even saying that they're comfortable that the -- controls for the internet. i was really hear act sort of groping for how they should rule recognizing that whatever decision they make is going to have enormous consequences for trademark law in a domain-name system. i thought it was interest interest -- very interesting that on the one hand there was a little discomfort from what i heard following good-year. you can follow it was the argument we made. but also i heard discomfort following the respondent's interpretation of the lamb act. jeff: it was indeed interesting and it was justice aloito who raise that would point. he said what do you think i should do if i think goodyear is from a different era and doesn't control here but the other also
7:21 pm
makes sense in that era but perhaps not in our own. margaret, can you sum up in your view the essential argument that the respondent was aking. and blast your response to jufrls alito's question? >> and i wrote a brief on the behalf of the university of chicago. our test, what does the particular trademark, which are lot of times generally trademarks, does that have a primary significance for those particular goods or services as a brand, as a trademark that's protectable under the statute.
7:22 pm
is that word primarily just a generic term? that e problem is, should be a very bright line test or a flexible test? is actually inst the trademark statute itself, 15 u.s. cold 1064-3 and that test says we look at evidence at what the primary significance of that particular term is to the public i.p.'ve been practicing in law for 39 years and we always look at the evidence. it's a factual question and determine that answer. we don't use or we haven't used -- i don't think any circuit court uses -- tests to just say stop, you're out of the game. it's generic, no trademark
7:23 pm
registers. i think they've always looked at the evidence and used flexible ests, which is in the statute. >> thank you so much for that. so part of the dispute is whether a generic term can ever be trademarked if it requires secondary meaning as tested whether people understand it or whether people come to know that a generic term as being associated with a particular brand shouldn't matter. professor, your brief was crimetted several times. it's unusual for a single brief to be cited during both sides of the argument so collations to you but you had expressed some skepticism about the consumer surveys that were used and you noted as several of the justice did that washing was stakenly viewed as a
7:24 pm
particular brand, which it wasn't. so tell us more about this empirical dispute and the legal consequences of the case. >> it really is a policy dispute. i'm not sure that the statute actually analysis it. it's a question it -- that it turns out a bunch of people find difficult because it's not a layperson's question. as a practical matter a dot-com is one source. that's how the domain name system works so people don't any of it as having source significance versus nonsource significance so it's a hard question to answer. here's the way i think of it. say you ask a bunch of people to solve a complicated math problem then you look at the people who manage to solve it and then
7:25 pm
ask some questions of them and the majority of the people who managed this solve it, a substantial majority, also get some other question right. does that mean that most people got the question right? no. it means that most people who were able to understand this other concept got it right. unlike most surveys, which disqualify a small percentage of people. there's also some stuff that happens in surveys. people give wrong answers intentionally or accidentally or don't understand something, so you exclude them. that's usually a small percentage. the problem here was etch after they trained people on the difference between cereal, a generic term and sell log. a trademark for a producer of cereal and even after they told people not all dot-coms are trademarks. 33% basically thought, yes, all
7:26 pm
dot-coms are trademarks and additional -- additional 6% weren't sure. so 40% of people who had in theory couldn't -- comboment through this screen, couldn't make the distinction. why should they? it's not relevant to them in their daily lives. so that's the question are sur vias a good way of getting at what we're interested in or asking things not suit forward survey? i don't think the statute answers that so this is the question. how do we determine a what means and actually the relevant law i think so the much more from a -- an early 20th century case about clog and shredded wheat. the issue there was that shredded wheat had been patented
7:27 pm
and people knew one producer of it so they tended to associate that with one producer. the patent monopoly ended and other people got to make shredded wheat. the court said in that case that even know there's a powerful association with one producer. the de facto thing, you still can't prevent other people from using the generic term. so i think margaret is absolutely right, that woe do do an empire cal study but we have also before as a backstop, sometimes the empirical reason is not enough. sometimes if there's a good competitive reason to let people use it, we let them use it. so you can use the term but you have to use your own trade mark with it. jeff: thank you. that's exactly what justice br ayer said.
7:28 pm
he said,, but flled be all sorts of lawsuits for i for talian pizza or i and that would create an area of exclusivety he said might create monopoly power. ore religion, tell us -- chin, tell us -- one of our quest questioners asked what is the test mcshaharry asked. can you explain it? and then tell us more about the anti-competitive concern. you're concerned in your breach that if the court rules for that no one will be able to use any name that includes booking in it if them hotels or other similar services
7:29 pm
and that would give a huge and unearned mo nop i bli -- monopoly. >> i'm not even necessarily worried about booking. that's what is at issue here but it's more a question of the precedent that this is going to set for other companies in other situations. when youeality is that have, you've already gotten yourself an enormous commercial advantage, put ourself ahead of the game. we -- you make a choice. when you choose a name. you can choose a generic name and that's going to give you a certain kind of commercial advantage out of the gate because when people are looking for that kind of service they'll
7:30 pm
more likely go to you. register with dot-com on top of that, you've cemented a power powerful advantage. but the trade off and -- is that you don't get a trademark in that. you get a commercial advantage but you give up another kind of commercial advantage. the test that i was referring to and this is the p.t.o. argument but i think it's one that makes sense. when we talk about the primary significance test and primary significance question and secondary meaning. we've been talking about whether something acquires secondary meaning. that should come in when you have a descriptive mark but the argument from the p.t.o.. when you have a purely descriptive mark, you don't have
7:31 pm
to get into all of that because really, again, it comes back to that choice that a company has made out of the gate that it's going to choose one kind of commercial advantage, where it comes from, a generic choice with their name and giving up amount kind of commercial advantage that comes with getting a trademark. that, i think, is the key we ion here and the worry have, not just? that they'll register it for the generic name and then other companies won't be able to come along and compete effectively because the trade mark owner with own the generic name and the trademark and it's closed off a huge amount of space. i think in an era we have right now with a lot of concern about the tech giants and competition in the online space, it seems to
7:32 pm
me as a matter of policy, any ruling that cements that anti-competitive situation is a dangerous one for the internet d that's who my organization represents. internet users, small business owners who are really looking -- and we also generally try to protect competition online because we think that's how you get better innovation. the danger of this situation is you're going to undermine that kind of competition. jeff: thank you for that. this primary significance test should be relevant for a descriptive mark but not for a generic mark. if you have a generic thing like booking or weather, you shouldn't get into the question of how people understand it. only when you have something more descriptive of the product being described. margaret, what would be the against ce of a ruling
7:33 pm
you? lass -- lisa blatt, arguing for the responsibilitient said there are already plenty of these,, and suggested all of those could be challenged. k and justice begins burg -- ginsberg said who could apply to cancel existing registerses? and that led to a question of whether trademarks like 1-800-bookings or as justice breyer said for a particular address could be challenged if the court rules against so tell us about your response to the practical effects of a ruling against you. >> right, i heard in the oral arguments and i want to also express that i thought both women did a remarkable job, an outstanding job on the
7:34 pm
historical oral arguments today and for the first time in the history of the court -- which is a difficult thing to do and did such an excellent job, which was remarkable for me. i do want to say that trademarks are tricky and whether a word is generic or descriptive is a factual issue and we need a test so that you can determine that answer, whether you are at the pen and trademark office or in front of a jury or a judge. i think a flexible test, again, works well. i think if you had a bright line test that said oh, this is generic. we're not going to look at the evidence. by the way, the evidence can be newspaper and magazine articles, it can be a dictionary defense, a lot of thifrpblts things. but in this case, the survey evidence showed that 75% of
7:35 pm
consumers, whether the survey was broad or not, that 75% of consumers in this particular survey thought that was a brand, not generic. but the tricky part is there's a sliding scale of trademarks. they're -- there are very highly protectable trademarks that are completely coined words or arbitrary and fans if iful words with no real meaning. then words like apple, if you have a meaning but combined with a service that doesn't have anything to do with apple the fruit, they're highly protectable because an apple doesn't tell you that their goods or services are computers. descriptive marks tell you something about their services but don't necessarily tell you completely what they are so if we had clothing that had apples all over it would that be
7:36 pm
protectable with the trademark apple because it does describe goods and services? that's the question with trademarks. that's why it would seem in all trademark law, a flexible test, which is what is the primary meaning of that word or term to the consuming public and is that just purely the generic word? there's no other way to describe goods and services than that word or is it descriptive? and if it's descriptive. a flexible test really worksd well to determine that. because it's factual. it really has to be looked at based on the evidence. today. i'm booking do you know if i'm at a football game, if i reserved a deny an airline ticket. if i'm just hitting the books hard and i was booking it today. it's really a faxal question
7:37 pm
that a jury or in this case, the p.t.o. has to determine and i think the flexible test is the best one to apply. jeff: thank you for that and thank you also for noting what a suburb job both women did in the -- superb job both women did in he case and how striking how yevket effectual both were. it's a very intimate give and take, very cofferingsal. here we have a formal running down of the jums in order. they all asked questions, including justice thomas. they were quite respectful of each other, said some jokes. but with the exception of a couple of times people getting on mute, it ran smoothly. let's begin with the questions that struck you most
7:38 pm
significant. the very first question of the argument was that of chief justice roberts. he said counsel, you mentioned goodyear race but you didn't quote the language. the primary significance of the mark to the public shall be the primary criteria. she said good yeever had a different test. shouldn't this attach chute which came later matter more than good-year? what was the significance of that question and more generally, which questions by the justice would you like to share with our viewers and friends as being especially significant? >> i actually think that first question is really helpful and it connects this case to actually a broader thing going n in the court, which is the read the manual theory of the statutory and conks constitutional interpretation. i think it's rather unfortunate
7:39 pm
that the court is increasingly taking the position that the shatch chutes and the congress tuelings clearly mean one thing. can't you see? this meanings they don't consider things like the -- act ich is explicit of about 100 years of american decisions creating a common law of trademark and unfair competition so the court does not have the best tools or has abandoned some of the tools in the judicial basket for dealing with that statutory language that haad has some sort of common law language or enacted against the back develop of making certain specific exchanges to the primary lame la -- law. the justice' questions indicated they actually were pretty clear on what happened which is in the
7:40 pm
early 1980's, a court has inval dated a trademark on the game from ma nominally on the theory that consumers wanted the game which they understood to be a unique product, so therefore the trademark was unique. this reasoning is problematic because it all -- also applies to my beloved diet coke, which is, in fact, unique, know it is just a type of soda. congress wanted to say that because a person wants a taste of diet coke, diet coke is not a valid trademark. the amendment didn't really address the question here, which is if it's not because of -- because it's unique but because it refers to pre-existing meaning, is that generic? how do we figure out what that means? to primary significance makes sense when you're asking do you
7:41 pm
think that mo normal lip refers to a specific -- monopoly refers to a specific game from a specific producer. it doesn't necessarily make sense when you're talking about shredded wheat, which until just a year ago had only one producer. jeff: many thanks for that. corrine, i want to make sure i understand and all of our viewers do, the precise difference between the five categories of trademarks listed in order of distinctiveness and protectability. first generic, second descriptive, third, suggestive. i feel like i'm back in our wonderful english literature class. remind us one more time what the difference between a generic and a descriptive mark is and then why it is that as things become more suggestive, specific, >> temporary and fanciful, it's
7:42 pm
more appropriate to trademark them. >> ok. [laughter] that's a lot. jeff: so we can understand it. >> let me get to what i think is the key issue here with trademarks. the idea is that we want to have spectrum -- one spectrum from purely generic to purely fanciful. a difference between generic and descriptive can get kind of tricky to figure out. but the sort of core question that's confronted the p.t.o. and all of us faces, the more something is purely fanciful, purely arbitrary, the more it looks like it's fine for that to be technically owned, controlled by a spectacular entity because it's not going to impede competition. it's going to do what trademarks are supposed to do, which is each the source of a good so
7:43 pm
that consumers can say, yes, i want coca-cola. i don't want pepsi. i don't like pepsi. i want coca-cola. coca-cola is more fanciful, has the logo and all that stuff and it helps consumers make that choice that they are using the particular brand that they want and that it will taste a certain kind of way and that's what they're after. without controlling the language and that's really what a lot of the troubles with trademark are. you don't want to have a situation where somebody can really own, control too much of language all together. one of the things that i think is interesting here, a thing that could do, they could house fanciful logos and trademark those and then -- no one's really arguing about that. it's only when you're talking about something where it's like
7:44 pm
purely -- dot-com is just, it's like company, like any other thing. in fact, dot-com is designed to be quivellenlt to company. when the domain rule was established, that was the basic idea. in terms of the question that i think is interesting -- again, to me, what i saw was a whole series of questions where i saw the judges being worried. they're worried about the implications of this ruling for the internet. what situation are they going to create for companies down the line? how do they come up with a rule that isn't going to set up a few companies in a position of being able to shut down all of their competitors? and i think that the answers that i heard were not completely satisfying. for example, these kinds of
7:45 pm
trademarks aren't really lit gated off that -- all that often but if you're a small company and you can't afford that litigation, that's full stop for you. a lot of times, too, things don't get litigated because they get shut down before they ever get to litigation and that's the kind of situation they worry about. the other thing i heard -- i heard a number of questions, too, what does really need this for? what's the points? they have a commercial advantage already, what are we fighting about here for them? what are the stakes for them? and i thought it was interesting that ms. blatt said what we really want to be able to do is -- and that's interesting. the short hand for that is these are situations where you go to court and you want to go after someone offshore and get an order from the court basically trying to shut down access to that website and that's a very
7:46 pm
, bunch edge air -- area of law. i thought that was telling. i didn't see that in a briefing but i think that's what wants. the abilities to go and shutdown offshore copycat sites. that's really the stakes here and i think that's very interesting as well. jennifer: thank you for that. margaret, responding to that, is that what wants? sitee able to shut down off- marks? i need to understand this distinction to explain it. the distinction between generic and descriptive terms. the p.t.o.'s breach says that a term that begins as generic are becomes generic over time can never be traded marked. a descriptive term which describes the quality of a goods
7:47 pm
or service. ke after 1406 plus tanning lotion can be protected as a trademark but only if it's become distinctive as in the yellow pages, which everyone recognizing and the question is in the age of the internet, it would become to easy to turn a generic phrase like booking into a descriptive one simply because of the fact you spent a lot of money advertising and people associate it to a particular website. andoth to corynne's concern why you're not concerned that the internet world changes the distinction between generic and descriptive terms any more than in the non-internet world. >> right. the trademark statute 15 u.s. code was definitely not written with the internet in mind. in fact, the internet did not xist that i know of in the
7:48 pm
1940's when it was first enaffected by congress. -- quong. i think that to have one rule for trademarks for.comes as opposed to another rule for another type of trademarks is a slippery slope. i don't think that necessarily -- certainly all trademark owners want to shut down copycat sites pretending to be them. you're getting a copycat, not the genuine goods or services and they want to shut that down, especially to protect the consuming prick for not getting the same quality of goods and services on a copycat site. but i think their main goal is really to protect their brands. just like coke or pepsi wants to protect their brand so that every time you use that particular product, you'll get the same quality. i think is really
7:49 pm
trying to say, if you come to this website, as opposed to another resident vacations or hotel or reservation service, you'll get the same quality of services every time and i think that's why they're trying to protect it as a brand. it does have some distinctive logo design as well. i recall that in the patent application, distinctive colors in the mark and other designs in the mark but the bottom line, they want to protect that as their brand so that when jeffrey r rebecca or coryn, ne go to that site, we'll get the same quality every time. jeff: thank you for that. it's time for closing arguments in this rich discussion. the supreme court ended pretty well on time and we will too. rebecca, final thoughts, including, i'm curious, to what
7:50 pm
degree are the policy considerations that we've discussed, mainly the fear that a particular company like could monopolize the name and draw out competitors. any legal act for the justices to take those into account? although, i don't want you to predict. maybe you could sum up based on the oral argument you just heard the major considerations that different justices expressed that you think might be significant. >> thank you. very quickly, i do want to say trademark asy used a synonym for register. it's not really the same thing and i did it too. but for a lot of trademark -- feeling a little sad right now because the oral arguments con plated trademark with registers. this is a point related to the core of the case, which is even if you don't have a registers,
7:51 pm
there are circumstances where you can act against bad actors so i think the court was sensitive to nose questions of mo floipization and what are the prornte remedies and if is asking for such a tiny, tiny right andst not objecting to all these other things, what is it actually asking for? why sit here from the right will not extend past, exact copies, which is, margaret, i think is exactly right about what they're interested in but, of course, nece the des moines name registers for so they can completely control the quality of the services they deliver. there's no problem that trademark is able to or necessary to it in terms of what's on so i think the justices are going to be struggling with reconciling with what booking is asking for with
7:52 pm
the kind of core justifications for a trademark policy and i think they will want to say that the statutory language enters it. but since it doesn't, they will inevitably have to do something and i won't predict because i don't think it's predictable. jeff: wonderful. thank you very much. they'll have to say the statutory language covers it but it doesn't so they'll have to do something. rynne, this is a sort of closing argument for the petitioner's side but based on the oral argument you just heard, why do you believe that the court should adopt the rule you've argued for and what in the argument you just heard makes you think they might? >> i think there's no getting away from this decision, whatever decision they make as being a policy decision.
7:53 pm
they have to make a choice and when they make this decision, they're going to have to look or they should consider what's the most pro-competitive move we can make? when we think about trademark. trademark policy has always, always tried to take into account the risk of overcontrolling language, the risk of shutting down competition unfairly. they also need to look at whether the other tools in's tool kit. they'll want to think about the consequences for that. of course, has many other tools in its tool kit. unfair competition law and you can also just look at the economic advantage but it -- that it already has. taking all of that into account, it seems to me that the court should follow one of the sort of bedrock trademark poils choices, which is that when you have made
7:54 pm
a choice. when you set up your business to adopt a generic name, you have to accept the consequences of that choice. that advantage that gives you commercially, combined with the damage you get when you've already registered the demane name is enormous and i think that that should be more than sufficient to satisfy any company, including jeff: thank you so much for that. margaret, last word to you. why do you think the court should adopt the rule that has urged and what do you hear in the argument that makes you think they might? >> again, as you pointed out, jeffrey, right out of the gate, justice rockets asked a very important question, whether it should be what the primary significance of a particular term is to the public to determine whether a mark is generic or descriptive and can function as a registered trademark, as a brands and can
7:55 pm
be protected by registers. apply asked why would we a 130-year-old supreme court case, the goodyear case, that didn't really take into account a statute and really didn't take into account the internet, certainly, and why shouldn't we look at the statute as the primary significance test? i think that's what most of the circuits have been doing on that test, generic or descriptive but we do need a test and i think that's the tough part. i think the other concern that was raised was justice ginsberg said, rightly, so what will this do to so many registered marks? i think about not for profits and how they lean towards using more descriptive marks because they want to tell their supporters something about the cause that the supporter is
7:56 pm
supporting and i think it would have a very devastating effect on not for profits' very descriptive marks. that said, i do any a flexible test is the one that we should obviously lean towards when we look at statutory interpretation and not probably a 130-year-old case that came before the judges. jeff: thank you some, everyone, for an exciting beginning to this great educational experiments. we have expressed confidence that citizens of the united states are engaged enough to take the time to dig into these complicated legal arguments, to learn about the best arguments on both sides and to make up their own minds. i am soapered by your note about the marks of nonprofits and o i need to urge citizens to go to constitution which may or may not be trades markable under the test of
7:57 pm to learn more into to the interactive constitution, an amazing online learning platform that brings together the best liberal and conservative authorities in the country to describe every part of the constitution and go to article i, section 8, powers of congress and read about the constitutional basis of the trademark clause in the clause which gives congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times for authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. you can read scholars describing what they agree on and disagree about that. up some homework. before you come back tomorrow for the oral arguments, please read the briefs in the case. you have 24 hours to do it. more than enough time and go to the supreme court website,
7:58 pm
supreme click on the briefs. you don't have to read every word, i know they're long, but if you skim the essence of arguments on both sides and read the am cuss briefs, the friend of the court breefers, as well as the main party breefers then you'll be at least as well prepared to discuss these cases as we have been and i'm so grateful, again, for our flee panelists for doing such an able job for educating us. thank you so much for joining and c-span friends, see you tomorrow. >> thank you, jeff. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> oh, yea, oh, yea. all persons having business before the honorable supreme court are admonished to give their attention. >> for the first time in history, hear the u.s. supreme
7:59 pm
court, live this month. due to the coronavirus pandemic, the justices are hearing oral arguments in cases before court by tell conference. c-span will provide live coverage of each of these sessions. on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the justices hear the se of usaid vs. alliance for international society incorporated about a law that predicts some federal assistance to fight aids and aids-h.i.v. internationally. then on wednesday, little sisters of the poor vs. pennsylvania and trump vs. pennsylvania. a consolidated oral argument on the constitutionalty of the affordable care acts birth control rule. and a first amendment case on banning automated calls to cell phones in order to collect debt on behalf of the united states. be a part of history and listen
8:00 pm
to the supreme court oral arguments as they are heard by the justices. tuesday and wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on demand on or listen on and immediately following the live supreme court session, join jeffrey rosen of the national constitution center leading a live discussion with scholars. ♪ >> washington journal primetime. for the next hour, they special evening addition of c-span's washington journal. your questions and comments about the coronavirus epidemic start now. host: on this monday, may 4, the start of a week in which we are seeing more states beginning to gradually reopen. there is a new projection indicating the number of coronavirus deaths in the u.s. could double this summer. so far, more than 68,000 have succumbed in the u.s.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on