Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 

MATAL v. TAM 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of ALITO, J. 

that  are  utilized  by  only  some,  e.g.,  the  adjudication  of
private lawsuits and the use of public parks and highways.
Trademark  registration  is  not  the  only  government
registration  scheme.  For  example,  the  Federal  Govern-
ment registers copyrights and patents.  State governments
and  their  subdivisions  register  the  title  to  real  property
and  security  interests;  they  issue  driver’s  licenses,  motor 
vehicle  registrations,  and  hunting,  fishing,  and  boating
licenses or permits.   
  Cases like Rust and Finley are not instructive in analyz-
ing the constitutionality of restrictions on speech imposed 
in connection with such services.  

C 
Finally, the Government urges us to sustain the dispar-
agement clause under a new doctrine that would apply to
“government-program”  cases.  For  the  most  part,  this 
argument  simply  merges  our  government-speech  cases
and  the  previously  discussed  subsidy  cases  in  an  attempt 
to construct a broader doctrine that can be applied to the 
registration of trademarks.  The only new element in this
construct  consists  of  two  cases  involving  a  public  employ-
er’s  collection  of  union  dues  from  its  employees.    But 
those cases occupy a special area of First Amendment case 
law,  and  they  are  far  removed  from  the  registration  of
trademarks. 

In  Davenport  v.  Washington  Ed.  Assn.,  551  U. S.  177, 
181–182  (2007),  a  Washington  law  permitted  a  public
employer  automatically  to  deduct  from  the  wages  of  em-
ployees  who  chose  not  to  join  the  union  the  portion  of 
union dues used for activities related to collective bargain-
ing.  But  unless  these employees affirmatively  consented, 
the law did not allow the employer to collect the portion of
union  dues  that  would  be  used  in  election  activities.    Id., 
at 180–182.  A public employee union argued that this law 
unconstitutionally  restricted  its  speech  based  on  its  con-