Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 37

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

7 

Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

It is telling that the Court’s precedents have recognized
just  one  narrow  situation  in  which  viewpoint  discrimina-
tion  is  permissible:  where  the  government  itself  is  speak-
ing  or  recruiting  others  to  communicate  a  message  on  its 
behalf.  See  Legal  Services  Corporation  v.  Velazquez,  531 
U. S.  533,  540–542  (2001);  Board  of  Regents  of  Univ.  of 
Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 229, 235 (2000); 
Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 833.  The exception is necessary
to allow the government to stake out positions and pursue
policies.  See  Southworth,  supra,  at  235;  see  also  ante,  at 
13–14.  But  it  is  also  narrow,  to  prevent  the  government
from  claiming  that  every  government  program  is  exempt 
from the First Amendment.  These cases have identified a 
number of factors that, if present, suggest the government
is  speaking  on  its  own  behalf;  but  none  are  present  here. 
See ante, at 14–18. 

There  may  be  situations  where  private  speakers  are
selected  for  a  government  program  to  assist  the  govern-
ment in advancing a particular message.  That is not this 
case either.  The central purpose of trademark registration
is  to  facilitate  source  identification.    To  serve  that  broad 
purpose,  the  Government  has  provided  the  benefits  of 
federal registration to millions of marks identifying every 
type of product and cause.  Registered trademarks do so by
means  of  a  wide  diversity  of  words,  symbols,  and  mes- 
sages.  Whether a mark is disparaging bears no plausible 
relation  to  that  goal.  While  defining  the  purpose  and
scope of a federal program for these purposes can be com-
plex, see, e.g., Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for 
Open Society Int’l, Inc., 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., 
at 8), our cases are clear that  viewpoint discrimination is 
not  permitted  where,  as  here,  the  Government  “expends
funds  to  encourage  a  diversity  of  views  from  private
speakers,”  Velazquez,  supra,  at  542  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted).