Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.

I'm John Carlo Canoparo.

I'm Zach Smith.

And welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome back to another episode of SCOTUS 101.

It's been another busy week at the court, G.C., and I know we're all staying very busy as well.

In fact, I'm on the road today, so I appreciate you recording remotely with me for this episode.

But start us off, G.C.

Were there any interesting orders that came out of the

court this week? Well, it was a pretty quiet week on the order's front. There were no new cases,

but a few notable denials of certiorari. The court rejected a First Amendment case challenging

state statutes banning vague harassment and false claims of political endorsement, the court also rejected

a case that could have raised the interesting question of whether unborn children have legal

personhood. Oh, that's very interesting. There were two oral arguments we'd like to highlight for you

this week, and I'll start things off with Andy Warhol Foundation versus Goldsmith.

Yes, this is a case involving that Andy Warhol, the famous artist.

Essentially in this case, the court is being asked to consider almost 35 years after Andy Warhol's passing, whether Warhol infringed on the copyright a famed rock and roll photographer Lynn Goldsmith by using a

photograph she took of the rock star prince that appeared in Vanity Fair. Now Vanity Fair paid a licensing

fee to Goldsmith to use the image, but before he died, Warhol created a series of images of prints

from Goldsmith's photograph, but he altered the

image in different ways by cropping and coloring it. Needless to say, Warhol did not pay a licensing

fee to Goldsmith. Now, here's where it gets interesting, G.C., Goldsmith was actually unaware of

...