[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] on Tuesday in the cases of Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools and Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. [SCOTUSblog backgrounders]. In the Fry case, a Michigan school district refused to let a student with cerebral policy bring a trained service dog to school. The child’s parents filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the school district violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The court is asked to decide [transcript, PDF] whether the Frys could initiate their lawsuit directly in federal court or if they were required to go through state administrative proceedings. The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the exhaustion requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [government backgrounder] applies, and that the Frys had not properly exhausted their remedies.

In Star Athletica, the court is asked to decide [transcript, PDF] what the appropriate test is to determine whether a “useful article” is protectable under the Copyright Act, Section 101 [text]. Varsity Brands initiated this suit against Star Athletica, claiming that the latter copied one of the cheerleading uniforms they designed. Courts have struggled to articulate a clear test for whether a useful object is functional and thus unprotected, or expressive and protected under the Copyright Act. The Sixth Circuit had utilized [opinion, PDF] a test where they asked (1) if the design is a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work; (2) if so, then whether it is a design of a useful article, (3) as informed by the utilitarian aspects of the useful article; and finally (4) can a viewer of the design distinguish the pictorial, graphic or sculptural work from its utilitarian aspects. That court held that Varsity’s designs are copyrightable subject matter.