Term: 2021
Docket: 20-1034
Golan v. Saada
- Pro
20-1034 GOLAN V. SAADA DECISION BELOW: 833 Fed.Appx. 829 CERT. GRANTED 12/10/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires return of a child to his or her country of habitual residence unless, inter alia, there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. The question presented is: Whether, upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 20-1544
In Golan v. Saada, the Supreme Court held that Congress’s 1994 amendment to the Copyright Act did not violate the First Amendment. The case involved a challenge by orchestra conductor Lawrence Golan and other musicians to Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which restored copyright protection for certain foreign works in order States. Petitioners argued that this violated their First Amendment rights because it prevented them from performing or distributing those works without permission from copyright holders, even if they had been freely available before URAA was passed. However, after considering both sides' arguments, the court found that Congress's action was permissible under its power to regulate intellectual property and international trade agreements; thus upholding URAA as constitutional.
In Golan v. Saada, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether Congress had the authority to restore copyright protection to certain foreign works that had previously been in the public domain. The majority opinion held that Congress did have the authority to do so, and that the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) was constitutional. Justice Stevens, writing for the dissent, argued that the CTEA was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. He argued that the CTEA was a content-based restriction on speech, and that it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. He also argued that the CTEA was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. Justice Stevens argued that the CTEA was a form of censorship, and that it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. He argued that the CTEA was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, and that it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. He also argued that the CTEA was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. In conclusion, Justice Stevens argued that the CTEA was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment, was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation, and was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the executive branch. He argued that the CTEA was a content-based restriction on speech, and that it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
