In November 2016, the federal government shut down a chain of hat shops in several states that sold items like hats with a slogan like “Buy American, Hire American.”
The stores, like many others, were selling hats with slogans like “buy American, hire American,” which is code for “don’t hire people from Mexico.”
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was also looking into whether the chain was deceptive and whether the business had violated its terms of service.
The company that owned the hat shop in Georgia, Hat Shop USA, had been licensed by the state for more than 10 years, but the state of Georgia shut it down after the state’s consumer protection agency filed a complaint.
The agency found that the hats in question did not meet the state standards for safety, and it ordered the owners of the hats to pay a $1,000 fine and pay a penalty of $250.
The hat shop owners argued that they could not afford to pay the fine because they had little to no employees, and the company was able to keep operating even with the state taking action.
But the state agreed with the owners, and they appealed.
A month later, Georgia officials filed a lawsuit against Hat Shop, alleging that the company had violated the state consumer protection law.
The court agreed with Hat Shop that the law violated their free speech rights.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the agency’s decision.
In September 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The justices unanimously ruled that the federal agency’s actions were not unconstitutional, ruling that the government had a First Amendment right to regulate the speech of hat sellers.
The Supreme Court also held that it had authority to enforce the federal law against the company that operated the hat shops.
On Monday, the justices heard oral arguments in the case that was filed by the U of T, which owns the Hat Shop.
The hearing will determine whether the Supreme to hear oral arguments will be in response to a request by the government to hear arguments on the merits.
This is not the first time the Supreme has heard arguments in a case related to the Hat-shop case.
In 2018, Justice Stephen Breyer filed a brief in support of a woman who had sued the owner of a hat shop who refused to pay her $10,000 in damages for being harassed and mistreated.
The brief argued that it is possible to hold a company liable for its actions by challenging their actions through an action on the First Amendment.
The U of t filed a separate brief in opposition to the lawsuit, saying that the Supreme must decide the issue by considering both the First and the Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee the right to free speech.