Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 34

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

7 

BARRETT, J., concurring in part 

tiny.  But they do not set off alarm bells signaling the like-
lihood that “ ‘official suppression of ideas is afoot.’ ”  Daven-
port, 551 U. S., at 189 (quoting R. A. V., 505 U. S., at 390).
Therefore,  I  agree  with  the  Court  that  we  need  not  treat 
content-based  trademark  registration  restrictions  as  pre-
sumptively unconstitutional.  Ante, at 6. 

II 

Though  content-based  registration  restrictions  do  not 
trigger strict scrutiny, they are still subject to judicial re-
view.  Thus, we must decide how to evaluate Elster’s chal-
lenge to the names clause.

The Solicitor General suggests that we draw an analogy
to another area that is inherently content based: the limited 
public forum.  When the government opens its property to
speech  for  a  particular  purpose,  creating  a  limited  public
forum,  it  necessarily  must  “reserv[e  the  property]  for  cer-
tain groups or for the discussion of certain topics.”  Rosen-
berger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 
829  (1995).  Content-based  restrictions  are  “inherent  and 
inescapable” in maintaining a forum for speech “compatible 
with the intended purpose of the property.”  Perry Ed. Assn. 
v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 49 (1983).  It 
is therefore inappropriate to view these restrictions as pre-
sumptively  unconstitutional  and  apply  strict  scrutiny. 
Still, not every restriction is permissible.  To evaluate these 
rules, we ask “whether they are reasonable in light of the
purpose which the forum at issue serves.”  Ibid.  This en-
sures  that  the  government  “respect[s]  the  lawful  bounda-
ries it has itself set.”  Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at 829. 

Though I would not shoehorn the trademark registration
system into the definition of a “limited public forum,” the 
Solicitor General’s analogy is apt.2  Content discrimination 

—————— 

2 JUSTICE THOMAS mistakenly suggests that I present the federal trade-
mark  register  as  a  limited  public  forum.    Ante,  at  21.  That  is  not  my