US Supreme Court to hear copyright case

US Supreme Court to hear copyright case

On Monday, the US Supreme Court published an order listing three new cases for its merits docket, including National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, Cruz v. Arizona and Andy Warhol Foundation, Inc. v. Goldsmith.

There are three cases at issue, relating to animal welfare regulations, criminal procedures and copyright disputes.

In National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the court is considering California Proposition 12, a regulation requiring certain space allowances for pigs. Those farms that do not comply with the space requirements may not be able to sell pork in California. This applies to both Californian and non-Californian farms.

In response to the Ninth Circuit's decision, the council appealed to the Supreme Court. The Council members asked the court to determine that a state law that has "dramatic economic consequences largely outside the state and requires pervasive changes to a nationwide industry" is a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits the state from enacting legislation that discriminates against or disproportionately burdens interstate commerce.

Cruz v. Arizona was granted review only for one issue: "Whether the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) prevented post-conviction relief is a sufficient and independent basis for the judgment under state law." In some criminal cases, federal courts may review state court decisions if they turn on federal law. In legal terminology, a writ of habeas corpus is a request for federal review. Whenever a state court judgment is based on both federal and state law, the Supreme Court may not review the case if the state law is (1) appropriate and (2) independent.

The Arizona Supreme Court denied Cruz's petition under 32.1(g), finding that no 'significant change in the law' has occurred since Cruz was convicted or sentenced. Cruz argues that this ruling is contrary to two previous Supreme Court decisions and asserts that the Arizona Supreme Court did not consider his case under federal law.

The case relates to a series of paintings by Andy Warhol created in response to a photograph taken by Lynn Goldsmith in 1984 of Prince. Warhol is claimed to have used Goldsmith's work in a permissible manner to create a new message. Upon the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for Goldsmith, the Warhol Foundation asked the Supreme Court to review the case and determine whether a court should disregard the original meaning of new art when it has been 'recognizably derived' from a source.