In today’s news and commentary, the Ninth Circuit revives Trader Joe’s trademark suit against an employee union, House lawmakers introduce a bill to make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits, and a former New Jersey Institute of Technology lecturer who praised Hitler gets another chance to bring First Amendment claims against the school.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit held that Trader Joe’s lawsuit against the fledgling Trader Joe’s Union (TJU) for alleged trademark infringement may proceed, reversing a district court’s dismissal of the suit. Trader Joe’s filed suit in 2023, alleging that apparel, home goods, and reusable tote bags sold on the union’s website used the company’s distinctive typeface, color, and design in violation of federal trademark law. In January 2024, U.S. District Judge Hernán Vera dismissed the case, finding no plausible likelihood of consumer confusion and characterizing the suit as an effort to “weaponize the legal system to gain an advantage in an ongoing labor dispute.” The Ninth Circuit, however, disagreed, concluding that the union’s sale of totes, mugs, and T-shirts was sufficiently likely to cause confusion, citing the “striking[] resemblance” between the TJU and Trader Joe’s logos and the use of the “same red color and similar stylized fonts.”

Meanwhile, House Democrats introduced a bill to make striking workers eligible for unemployment benefits, modeled on New Jersey and New York policies that provide benefits after a 14-day waiting period. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a co-sponsor of the bill, emphasized the importance of the proposal: “because a majority of states do not allow workers to collect unemployment benefits while on strike, many low-income and hourly workers are forced to agree to poor terms just to keep food on the table.” Outside of New York, and New Jersey, several other states have attempted to pass similar legislation with mixed results. Although unions have long advocated for nationwide protections for striking workers, the new bill faces long odds in a Republican-led Congress.

Finally, a unanimous Third Circuit panel held that a public university lecturer’s First Amendment claims were improperly dismissed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Jason Jorjani, a lecturer in New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) philosophy department, sued the university after it declined to renew his contract following a New York Times article about his “alt-right” views. The 2017 article was based in part on a recording of Jorjani in which he praised Hitler, predicting that Hitler would eventually be “seen as a great European leader.” Under the Pickering test, courts must weigh public employees’ First Amendment interests against competing government interests in efficiently providing public services. According to the court, there was “no support for NJIT’s contention that student disapproval of Jorjani’s speech disrupted the administration of the university,” and other faculty members’ statements denouncing Jorjani’s views were “precisely the sort of reasoned debate that distinguishes speech from distraction.” The court was also unpersuaded by NJIT’s appeals to its interest in providing a non-denigrating learning environment, noting that NJIT’s determination was not based on “competence or qualifications” and emphasizing the need to prevent universities from disciplining professors based on offensive speech.