[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari [order list, PDF] Monday in two cases. In Lexmark International, v. Static Control Components [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will determine whether the appropriate analytic framework for determining a party’s standing to maintain an action for false advertising under the Lanham Act [Cornell LII backgrounder] is (1) the factors set forth in Associated General Contractors of California v. California State Council of Carpenters (1983) [opinion] …; (2) the categorical test, permitting suits only by an actual competitor …; or (3) a version of the more expansive “reasonable
interest” test. There has been a circuit split on the issue. In this case the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied [opinion] the “reasonable interest” test, reversing the dismissal of Static Control’s counterclaims for false advertising.
In United States v. Apel [docket; cert. petition, PDF] the court will decide whether 18 USC § 1382 [text], which prohibits a person from reentering a military installation after a commanding officer has ordered him not to reenter, may be enforced on a portion of a military installation that is subject to a public roadway easement. A protester, John Apel, was barred from a military base in California but continued to protest on a public roadway on government-owned land outside the entrance. He was convicted of three counts of trespassing. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed [opinion] Apel’s convictions.
Also Monday the court issued a per curiam decision in Nevada v. Jackson [docket; cert. petition, PDF]. The court found that Calvin Jackson was not entitled to federal habeas relief because the Nevada Supreme Court had not violated any clearly established Supreme Court precedent when it excluded evidence that he had sought to introduce in his rape trial.