Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 7

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

small,” accompanied by an illustration of a hand gesture, to 
use  on  shirts  and  hats.    The  mark  draws  on  an  exchange
between then-candidate Donald Trump and Senator Marco 
Rubio during a 2016 Presidential primary debate. 

The PTO examiner refused registration under the names
clause  because  the  mark  used  President  Trump’s  name 
without  his  consent.  The  Trademark  Trial  and  Appeal
Board affirmed, and it also rejected Elster’s argument that 
the names clause violates his First Amendment right to free
speech.1    The  Federal  Circuit  reversed,  holding  that  the
names clause violated the First Amendment.  In re Elster, 
26  F. 4th  1328  (CA  Fed.  2022).    The  court  first  concluded 
that the names clause is a viewpoint-neutral, content-based 
restriction on speech subject to at least intermediate scru-
tiny.  See id., at 1331, 1333–1334.  It next concluded that 
the Government could not satisfy even intermediate scru-
tiny because the names clause does not advance any sub-
stantial governmental interest.  See id., at 1339. 

We  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  whether  the  Lanham 
Act’s  names  clause  violates  the  First  Amendment.  598 
U. S. ___ (2023). 

II 
A 

The  First  Amendment  provides  that  “Congress  shall 
make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.”  In gen-
eral, we have held that the First Amendment prohibits the
Government from restricting or burdening “expression be-
cause of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its con-
tent.”  Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 
564, 573 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).  “When 

—————— 

1 The Board declined to reach the PTO examiner’s alternative ground
for refusing registration—that Elster’s mark “falsely suggest[s] a connec-
tion with persons, living or dead.”  15 U. S. C. §1052(a).  We focus only
on the names clause and express no opinion about whether Elster’s mark
fails to meet other requirements for federal registration.