Supreme Court Deliver Their Opinion In The "Trump Too Small" Case
Supreme Court Case Wrap-Up In Vidal v. Elster
Description
Episode #93
Today on Legalese, we are discussing the Supreme Court's decision in Vidal v. Elster (Also known as the "Trump Too Small" case).
This case arises from Steve Elster’s efforts to register the phrase “Trump Too Small” so that he could print and sell t-shirts bearing that phrase.
The court on Thursday, June 13, 2024 unanimously rejected an attempt to force the Patent and Trademark Office to accept the registration “Trump too small” as a trademark for T-shirts mocking the former president.
Docket No. 22-704
Opinion Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Question Presented: Section 1052(c) of Title 15 provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be refused registration if it "[c]onsists of or comprises a name * * * identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent." 15 U.S.C. 1052(c). The question presented is as follows:
Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.
Holding: The Lanham Act’s names clause — which prohibits the registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name ... identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent” — does not violate the First Amendment.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 13, 2024. Thomas announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court, except as to Part III. Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined that opinion in full; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined all but Part III; and Justice Barrett joined Parts I, II-A, and II-B. Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Roberts joined. Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Justice Kagan joined, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Part I, II, and III-B, and in which Justice Jackson joined as to Parts I and II. Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Kagan and Jackson joined.
Subscribe to the Legale§e Newsletter You will get notifications for all new content, whether it’s articles, podcasts or videos!
Visit the Legale§e Podcast homepage to learn more about the show, get updates, contact me, buy my book, find links to my social media & more!
Follow
Support
BUY MY NEW BOOK
Constitutional Sleight Of Hand: An explicit history of implied powers Now Available on Amazon