This week at SCOTUS, a unanimous decision was reached in Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group. The decision is one of those legal “in the weeds” and contains a lot of legalese that I will try and digest here.
For a good technical breakdown, Megan La Belle over at the wonderful SCOTUSblog has a good review.
The main takeaway is that in a complicated suit, there is still a general open question as to whether or not you can raise a defense that you did not raise before. The Supreme Court tends to say that there are circumstances where you cannot, but the issues at hand in Lucky did not meet those criteria.
Most of us will not have to worry about these sorts of matters – it involves more complicated suits than we will rarely have to deal with at your local court. Cases like this we DO tend to see some of the effects of as companies clash for competitive advantages over one another.
The other interesting arguments this week came from an issue that is entirely theoretical, that of “faithless electors” and whether or not electors can go against the popular vote of their state. 2016 saw an interesting mix of faithless electors, and it is probably a good thing that we are likely to see some sort of decision here before the 2020 election. However, only in one instance has a faithless elector ever mattered (an 1836 Vice Presidential election). I imagine we will see several faithless electors again in 2020 if they are allowed, though it is again unlikely to sway an election.