Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

6 

VIDAL v. ELSTER 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

reasonable, then it does not violate the Free Speech Clause. 

II 
A 
This  Court  has  applied  strict  constitutional  scrutiny  to 
viewpoint-neutral  content  classifications  on  some  occa-
sions, and thus treated them as “presumptively unconstitu-
tional.”  Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155, 163 (2015). 
It has declined to do so, however, when any “risk” that such 
classification  “will  impermissibly  interfere  with  the  mar-
ketplace of ideas” is “attenuated”;  that is, when “ ‘there is 
no  realistic  possibility  that  official  suppression  of  ideas  is
afoot.’ ”  Davenport v. Washington Ed. Assn., 551 U. S. 177, 
188–189 (2007) (quoting R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 
390  (1992)). 
In  those  cases,  “the  difference  between 
viewpoint-based and viewpoint-neutral content discrimina-
tion can be decisive.”  Brunetti, 588 U. S., at 421 (opinion of 
SOTOMAYOR, J.).  This is such a case: Whereas the denial of 
trademark registration under viewpoint- and content-based
criteria  is  presumptively  unconstitutional  under  height-
ened  scrutiny,  a  denial  under  viewpoint-neutral,  content-
based criteria is not constitutionally suspect and does not 
trigger the same exacting scrutiny.  See ante, at 3–12 (ma-
jority opinion).

In explaining why the difference is decisive in this con-
text,  the  Court  and  JUSTICE  BARRETT  emphasize  that
trademarks are inherently content based, yet have long co-
existed with the First Amendment.  Ante, at 6–11 (majority 
opinion); ante, at 2–7 (opinion of BARRETT, J.).  I agree with
the use of historical evidence to support this point.  History 
informs the understanding that content-based distinctions 
are an intrinsic feature of trademarks, and that the marks’ 
purpose is to identify and distinguish goods for the public. 
See ante, at 2–6 (opinion of BARRETT, J.).  That use of his-
tory is legitimate and in fact valuable, just as evidence of a