Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 57

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

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

trademarks whose content is obscene, vulgar, or profane”). 
In sum, the names clause is constitutional because it is a 
viewpoint-neutral, reasonable limitation on a trademark’s
registration. 

* 

* 

* 
The  Court’s  “decision  today  is  narrow,”  and  its  history-
and-tradition  test  is  good  only  for  “the  relatively  simple 
case before us today.”  Ante, at 20, 22.  Ultimately, all nine
Justices agree that Congress can innovate when it comes to
trademark  law,  and  we  further  agree  that  nothing  in  to-
day’s  opinion  calls  into  question  the  constitutionality  of
viewpoint-neutral provisions lacking a historical pedigree.
See  ibid.;  ante,  at  1  (KAVANAUGH,  J.,  concurring  in  part); 
ante, at 1–2 (opinion of BARRETT, J.); supra, at 3–6. 

For the reasons set forth above, I respectfully concur in 

the judgment.