God save the United States and this honorable court. This morning we will hear argument in case 19177 the United States agency for International Development versus the alliance for open society international. I note at the outset that Justice Kagen is recused in this case. Mr. Michelle . Justice, may it please20 years ago, the hiv aids the court. Pandemic was devastating the world. In response, president bush proposed since reauthorized three times, the act has committed nearly 80 billion to global aids relief. It has worked. The funding condition at issue here requires recipients to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking, which Congress Found are coercive practices that spread hivaids. This court held that a flight that condition to respondents, domestic entities violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine but respondents sought more and the question is whether the condition can still be applied to foreign grant recipients operating abroad. It can, for two reaso
Justice and made please the court, the issues here are unprecedented in every sense. Before these cases, no court had ever upheld the courts use of subpoena powers to the records of a sitting president with a broad swath of the president s personal papers to the let alone purpose of the a potential legislation. There is a reason this is the first time a set has attempted such a gambit. Because, grist has subpoena power, it is subordinate and when that power is deployed against the president , it must yield absent any longstanding tradition or compelling showing of need. The committees consent is neither condition and that should decide this case. The committees contend the subpoenas satisfy the limits this court has always applied to congressional subpoenas. But the arguments would render meaningless but the arguments would render those limits meaningless. They claim congress can you subpoenas to uncover individual wrongdoing simply because that the always informed efficiency of existi
For colin powell. They were each fined 1000. The justices have through june to issue a ruling in the case. T cast their ballots under ballots for colin powell instead of hillary clinton. This is an hour and 15 minutes. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yea oh yea oh yea, all persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States to give their attention with the court is sitting, god save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear arguments first this morning in 19 for 65, the lot below and the others versus the state of washington,. Mr. Chief justice and appease this court, the question in these cases is straightforward to the states have the power to control through law how an elector may vote, they do not, then ordinary expected meaning of the words of the constitution against the backlog of the framers deliberation make it clear that the state has no such power in what
Wins the state popular vote. The case involves three Washington State electors that cast their ballots under ballots for colin powell instead of hillary clinton. This is an hour and 15 minutes. The honorable, the chief justice and the associate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh yea oh yea oh yea, all persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States to give their attention with the court is sitting, god save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear arguments first this morning in 19 for 65, the lot below and the others versus the state of washington,. Mr. Chief justice and appease this court, the question in these cases is straightforward to the states have the power to control through law how an elector may vote, they do not, then ordinary expected meaning of the words of the constitution against the backlog of the framers deliberation make it clear that the state has no such power in what is also clear, washingto
The court is now sitting. Youll hear argument this morning in case 1946, the United States patent and Trademark Office versus booking. Com. Mr. Chief justice, ma it please the court. No party can continue trademark for a generic term. Anddge finally explained confirmed a generic term is never entitled to trademark protection matter how much money and effort the user has poured into the sale of the merchandise and what success it has achieved in securing public identification. Secondary meetings are required and irrelevant to generic terms. The principal controls here, it is undisputed that booking is generic for the Hotel Service response it provides. They could not federally register bookings. The court filed that addition of an entity designations like company inc. Did not create a protectable market. That is because the term indicates only the party performed in association or partnership. It is prohibited the doctor from leaving trademark, will ensure that no party can monopolize a