Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12 

MATAL v. TAM 

Opinion of the Court 

volume of applications have produced a haphazard record 
(Even  today,  the  principal  register  is
of  enforcement. 
replete  with  marks  that  many  would  regard  as  disparag-
ing  to  racial  and  ethnic  groups.6)  Registration  of  the 
offensive marks that Tam cites is likely attributable not to
the  acceptance  of  his  interpretation  of  the  clause  but  to
other  factors—most  likely  the  regrettable  attitudes  and 
sensibilities of the time in question. 

III 
Because the disparagement clause applies to marks that
disparage  the  members  of  a  racial  or  ethnic  group,  we 
must  decide  whether  the  clause  violates  the  Free  Speech 
Clause  of  the  First  Amendment.    And  at  the  outset,  we 
must  consider  three  arguments  that  would  either  elimi-
nate  any  First  Amendment  protection  or  result  in  highly
permissive  rational-basis  review.    Specifically,  the  Gov-
ernment  contends  (1)  that  trademarks  are  government
speech, not private speech, (2) that trademarks are a form
of  government  subsidy,  and  (3)  that  the  constitutionality
of the disparagement clause should be tested under a new 
“government-program” doctrine.  We address each of these 
arguments below. 

A 

The  First  Amendment  prohibits  Congress  and  other 
government  entities  and  actors  from  “abridging  the  free-
dom  of  speech”;  the  First  Amendment  does  not  say  that
Congress  and  other  government  entities  must  abridge
their own ability to speak freely.  And our cases recognize
that  “[t]he  Free  Speech  Clause  . . .  does  not  regulate  gov-
ernment  speech.”  Pleasant  Grove  City  v.  Summum,  555 

—————— 

to postulate.” Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc., 50 USPQ 2d 1705, 1737 (TTAB 
1999), rev’d, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (DC 2003), rev’d and remanded in part, 
415 F. 3d 44 (CADC 2005) (per curiam). 

6 See, e.g., App. to Brief for Pro-Football, Inc., as Amicus Curiae.