Recently, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett contradicted a statement made by Justice Clarence Thomas in a unanimous Thursday decision.
The case involved Steve Elster, who wanted to trademark the phrase “TRUMP IS TOO SMALL” for clothing without permission from former President Donald Trump.
The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application based on trademark laws violating the Lanham Act.
Elster won an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, but the Supreme Court ultimately denied his argument of First Amendment rights violation.
Thomas argued that trademark laws focus on content rather than viewpoints, with historical importance shaping the scope of the First Amendment.
Barrett, in her concurring opinion, opposed Thomas’ views on historical perspectives affecting constitutionality, criticizing the Court’s use of analogies and counter-examples.
She argued against Thomas’ interpretation of a public forum, stating that her analogy referred to a content-based structure.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with Barrett, highlighting flaws in the historical analysis employed by the majority.
Sotomayor also referenced Thomas’ previous arguments, emphasizing the nuances in his opinion.
In the past, a similar trademark dispute, Iancu v. Brunetti, also involved freedom of speech issues.