Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 39

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

1 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 15–1293 
_________________ 

JOSEPH MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED 

STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

PETITIONER v. SIMON SHIAO TAM 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
 

[June 19, 2017]

 JUSTICE  THOMAS,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in 

the judgment. 

I  join  the  opinion  of  JUSTICE  ALITO,  except  for  Part  II. 
Respondent  failed  to  present  his  statutory  argument
either to the Patent and Trademark Office or to the Court 
of  Appeals,  and  we  declined  respondent’s  invitation  to 
grant  certiorari  on  this  question.    Ante,  at  9.    I  see  no 
reason to address this legal question in the first instance.
See  Star  Athletica,  L.  L.  C.  v.  Varsity  Brands,  Inc.,  580 
U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 6). 

I  also  write  separately  because  “I  continue  to  believe 
that  when  the  government  seeks  to  restrict  truthful 
speech  in  order  to  suppress  the  ideas  it  conveys,  strict
scrutiny  is  appropriate,  whether  or  not  the  speech  in 
question may be characterized as ‘commercial.’ ”  Lorillard 
Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U. S. 525, 572 (2001) (THOMAS, 
J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judgment);  see 
also,  e.g.,  44  Liquormart,  Inc.  v.  Rhode  Island,  517  U. S. 
484,  518  (1996)  (same).    I  nonetheless  join  Part  IV  of 
JUSTICE  ALITO’s  opinion  because  it  correctly  concludes 
that  the  disparagement  clause,  15  U. S. C.  §1052(a),  is 
unconstitutional  even  under  the  less  stringent  test  an-
nounced  in  Central  Hudson  Gas  &  Elec.  Corp.  v.  Public 
Serv. Comm’n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980).