Judges handling January 6 riot cases have clarified that pardons should not be seen as a free pass for future wrongdoings. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is set to review a case that could potentially direct more taxpayer dollars into religious schools, raising fears of undermining public education and promoting segregation. Additionally, issues surrounding the legality of parody under the Lanham Act remain contentious, as certain parodies may still infringe on trademark rights. Lastly, Trump’s demand for federal workers to return to their offices faces resistance due to established collective bargaining agreements that protect employee rights.
Judges presiding over January 6-related convictions have admonished defendants, emphasizing that they cannot treat presidential pardons as a means of sidestepping accountability for their actions.
The legal implications surrounding parody in relation to the Lanham Act suggest that parody may not always offer protection from trademark infringement claims, complicating issues for creators.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear a case involving religious schools raises concerns about the potential for increased public funding being funneled into private segregation academies, sparking intense debate.
Despite Trump’s insistence on federal employees returning to the office, many collective bargaining agreements stipulate otherwise, raising questions about the adherence to workers' rights and contract terms.
Collection
[
|
...
]