Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

12 

VIDAL v. ELSTER 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

(opinion of SOTOMAYOR,  J.).  From  this  Court’s  analogous
nonpublic-forum and limited-public-forum cases, it is clear 
that “reasonable” means that the challenged provision must 
reasonably serve the purpose of the content-based scheme.
On this point, I agree with JUSTICE BARRETT that the chal-
lenged trademark registration criteria must be “reasonable 
in  light  of  the  trademark  system’s  purpose  of  facilitating 
source identification.”  Ante, at 2; see ante, at 7–9. 

In  Cornelius,  for  example,  the  Court  confronted  a  free-
speech  challenge  to  the  Government’s  decision  to  exclude 
“legal  defense  and  political  advocacy  organizations  from
participation in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC or
Campaign),  a  charity  drive  aimed  at  federal  employees.” 
473 U. S., at 790.  After concluding that the CFC was a non-
public  forum  “not  dedicated  to  general  debate  or  the  free
exchange  of  ideas,”  the  Court  held  that  the  First  Amend-
ment permits content- and speaker-based “distinctions” so 
long as they are “reasonable in light of the purpose served 
by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.”  Id., at 806, 811. 
Importantly, the “decision to restrict access . . . need not be 
the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation.”  Id., 
at 808–809.  Based on this test, the Court ultimately con-
cluded  that  the  Government  acted  reasonably,  and  con-
sistent with the Free Speech Clause, in “limit[ing] partici-
pation  in  the  CFC  in  order  to  minimize  disruption  to  the 
federal workplace, to ensure the success of the fundraising
effort,  or  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  political  favoritism
without  regard  to  the  viewpoint  of  the  excluded  groups.” 
Id., at 813.

 JUSTICE THOMAS (joined by two Justices) rejects this test,
implying that it is subjective because it supposedly turns on
what a given judge might think is reasonable.  Ante, at 20. 
That  statement  misunderstands  the  inquiry.    As  just  dis-
cussed, a trademark registration condition is reasonable if
it serves as a source identifier, a concept that is familiar to 
anyone  who  has  worked  on  a  trademark  case.  See  Jack