Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 47

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

5 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

Bruen,  597  U. S.  1  (2022).    Ante,  at  19,  n. 4.    To  say  that
such reassurance is not comforting would be an understate-
ment.  One need only read a handful of lower court decisions
applying Bruen to appreciate the confusion this Court has 
caused.  Cf. Brief for Second Amendment Law Scholars as 
Amici  Curiae  in  United  States  v.  Rahimi,  O.  T.  2023,  No. 
22–915,  pp.  4–6  (discussing  examples  of  confusion  among 
lower courts applying Bruen).

Ultimately, I am reluctant to go further down this preci-
pice of looking for questionable historical analogues to re-
solve the constitutionality of Congress’s legislation.  To bor-
row Justice Scalia’s criticism from a different context, such 
hunting  “far  into  the  dimmy  past”  is  not  just  “a  waste  of 
research time and ink” but also “a false and disruptive les-
son in the law . . . that . . . condemns litigants (who, unlike
us, must pay for it out of their own pockets) to subsidizing 
historical research by lawyers.”  Conroy, 507 U. S., at 519 
(opinion  concurring  in  judgment).    I  would  instead  apply 
this Court’s First Amendment precedent, just as the parties 
did in arguing this case. 

C 
The most straightforward way to resolve this and other
free-speech challenges to trademark registration criteria is
through  a  doctrinal  framework  drawn  from  this  Court’s 
First Amendment precedent.  The analysis should proceed 
in  two  steps.  First  ask  whether  the  challenged  provision 
targets particular views taken by speakers on a given sub-
ject.  If the trademark registration bar is viewpoint based, 
it  is  presumptively  unconstitutional  and  heightened  scru-
tiny applies; if it is viewpoint neutral, however, the trade-
mark  registration  bar  need  only  be  reasonable  in  light  of 
the  purpose  of  the  trademark  system.  Specifically,  the
trademark registration bar must reasonably serve its pur-
pose of identifying and distinguishing goods for the public. 
If  the  challenged  provision  is  both  viewpoint  neutral  and