Simon Tam, lead singer of the rock group "The Slants," chose this mon­iker in order to "reclaim" the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons. Tam sought federal registration of the mark "THE SLANTS." The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application under a Lanham Act provision prohibit­ing the registration of trademarks that may "disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead." Tam contested the denial of registration through the administrative appeals process, to no avail. He then took the case to federal court, where the en bane Federal Circuit ultimately found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.

The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Contrary to the Government's contention, trade­marks are private, not government speech. Because the "Free Speech Clause does not regulate government speech," the government is not required to maintain viewpoint neutrality on its own speech. This Court exer­cises great caution in extending its government-speech precedents, for if private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could si­lence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints.

The Federal Government does not dream up the trademarks regis­tered by the PTO. Except as required, an examiner may not reject a mark based on the viewpoint that it appears to express. If the mark meets the Lanham Act's viewpoint-neutral requirements, registration is mandatory. And once a mark is registered, the PTO is not authorized to remove it from the register unless a party moves for cancellation, the registration expires, or the Federal Trade Commis­sion initiates proceedings based on certain grounds. It is thus far­fetched to suggest that the content of a registered mark is govern­ment speech, especially given the fact that if trademarks become gov­ernment speech when they are registered, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently. And none of this Court's government-speech cases supports the idea that registered trade­marks are government speech.

 With few narrow exceptions, a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. The test for viewpoint discrimination is wheth­er-within the relevant subject category-the government has sin­gled out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views ex­pressed. Here, the disparagement clause identifies the relevant subject as "persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols," and within that category, an applicant may regis­ter a positive or benign mark but not a derogatory one. The law thus reflects the Government's disapproval of a subset of messages it finds offensive, the essence of viewpoint discrimination. The Government's arguments in defense of the statute are unpersuasive.


ALITO, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-A, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined except for Part II, and an opinion with respect to Parts III-B, III-C, and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.



Cohen v. California

 Facts of the case

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR" The young man, Paul Cohen, was charged under a California statute that prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct." Cohen was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail.


Did California's statute, prohibiting the display of offensive messages such as "Fuck the Draft," violate freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?



 Yes. In an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. Harlan recognized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." In doing so, the Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).