Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

IANCU v. BRUNETTI 

Syllabus 

society’s  sense  of  decency  or  propriety.    The  statute,  on  its  face,  dis-
tinguishes between two opposed sets of ideas: those aligned with con-
ventional moral standards and those hostile to them; those inducing 
societal nods of approval and those provoking offense and condemna-
tion.  This  facial  viewpoint  bias  in  the  law  results  in  viewpoint-
discriminatory  application.    The  PTO  has  refused  to  register  marks 
communicating “immoral” or “scandalous” views about (among other 
things)  drug  use,  religion,  and  terrorism.    But  all  the  while,  it  has 
approved  registration  of  marks  expressing  more  accepted  views  on 
the same topics.  

The  Government  says  the  statute  is  susceptible  of  a  limiting  con-
struction  that  would  remove  its  viewpoint  bias.    The  Government’s 
idea  is  to  narrow  the  statutory  bar  to  “marks  that  are  offensive  [or]
shocking[ ]  because  of  their  mode  of  expression,  independent  of  any 
views  that  they  may  express,”  which  would  mostly  restrict  the  PTO 
to  refusing  marks  that  are  lewd,  sexually  explicit,  or  profane.    But 
this  Court  cannot  accept  the  Government’s  proposal,  because  the 
statute  says  something  markedly  different.    The  “immoral  or  scan-
dalous”  bar does not draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or pro-
fane marks.  Nor does it refer only to marks whose “mode of expres-
sion,” independent of viewpoint, is particularly offensive.  To cut the 
statute  off  where  the  Government  urges  is  not  to  interpret  the  stat-
ute  Congress  enacted,  but  to  fashion  a  new  one.    And  once  the  “im-
moral or scandalous” bar is interpreted fairly, it must be invalidated.
Pp. 4–11.

 877 F. 3d 1330, affirmed. 

KAGAN,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  THOMAS, 
GINSBURG,  ALITO,  GORSUCH  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined.  ALITO,  J., 
filed  a  concurring  opinion.  ROBERTS,  C. J.,  and  BREYER,  J.,  filed  opin-
ions concurring in part and dissenting in part.  SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an 
opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, J., 
joined.