Skip to main content
Skip to main content
MenuSearch & Directory
Close
People Finder Directory >

SLU LAW Summations Series: 2024 Supreme Court Session Analysis

This year the United States Supreme Court handed down quite a few significant decisions. Covering trademarks, executive powers, presidential immunity, the future of the FDA, and the Supremacy Clause, this session sought to answer many different legal questions. 

In this special SLU LAW Summations series, we talk with Professors Yvette Liebesman, Jamille Fields Allsbrook, and Anders Walker to analyze the cases and discuss the larger legal implications. 

Trump Too Small tshirt design in question

One notable case this year is Vidal v Elster where the Court rejected an attempt to force the Patent and Trademark Office to accept the registration of “Trump too small” as a trademark for t-shirts mocking the former president. In this episode we are joined by Professor Yvette Liebesman to discuss the case, the decision, and the implications going forward. Professor Liebesman is an expert in patent and trademark law and is the faculty advisor for the law school’s intellectual property concentration. 

Professor Jamille Fields Allsbrook

Two years following the Dobbs decision, the country’s highest court is grappling with the aftereffects. This year the Supreme Court handed down two related cases regarding the use of mifepristone and the application of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in states where abortions are banned. To discuss these cases, the implications, and we can expect in the future we are joined by Professor Jamille Fields Allsbrook. Professor Fields Allsbrook is a member of the Center for Health Law Studies faculty and focuses her research and scholarship on advancing gender and racial health equity. She was recently named a senior fellow for health justice at the National Partnership for Women & Families as well as a senior fellow for the Center for American Progress. 

Professor Anders Walker teaching in Scott Hall

In a watershed ruling regarding executive powers, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Trump v United States that presidents should be immune from prosecution for official actions they took while in office. While historically presidents have enjoyed some level of immunity, this ruling expands that greatly. To discuss this monumental ruling and the implications for the future of the presidency, we are joined by Professor Anders Walker. Professor Walker is an expert in constitutional law and American legal history.