Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 45

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

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

idea  or  message  expressed’ ”).    The  names  clause  is  also 
viewpoint neutral because it is agnostic as to how the name
in  the  mark  is  being  used  and  does  not  “distinguis[h]  be-
tween  two  opposed  sets  of  ideas.”  Brunetti,  588  U. S.,  at 
394; see ante, at 5 and n. 2 (majority opinion) (holding that 
the clause is viewpoint neutral both on its face and in prac-
tice).  On these points, and on the conclusion that the names 
clause  is  constitutional,  we  all  agree.  Our  disagreement
boils down primarily to methodology. 

B 
Those familiar with this trilogy of First Amendment chal-
lenges to the Lanham Act may be surprised, perhaps even
disappointed, to learn that, although this case presents the 
“situation we did not address in Tam or Brunetti,” the Court 
has shied away from setting forth a “framework ‘for decid-
ing  free  speech  challenges  to  provisions  of  the  Lanham 
Act.’ ”  Ante, at 6 (majority opinion) (quoting Tam, 582 U. S., 
at 245, n. 17 (plurality opinion)).  Yet perhaps the biggest
surprise (and disappointment) of today’s five-Justice major-
ity opinion is its reliance on history and tradition as a dis-
positive test to resolve this case.

In holding that the names clause is constitutional, that
majority asserts that one need look only to the “history and 
tradition” of the clause and “no further.”  Ante, at 12.  Why 
look to history and tradition alone?  Because, the majority 
says, it “is sufficient to conclude that the names clause . . . 
is compatible with the First Amendment.”  Ibid.  Consider-
ing this Court has never applied this kind of history-and-
tradition test to a free-speech challenge, and that “[n]o one 
briefed, argued, or even hinted at the rule that the Court 
announces  today,”  one  would  have  expected  a  more  satis-
factory explanation.  Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 585 U. S. 87, 
102  (2018)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting).    There  is  none 
grounded in our First Amendment doctrine and precedent.
JUSTICE BARRETT questions the majority’s because-it-is-