On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning the registration of offensive trademarks was unconstitutional. The decision was a victory for the Asian-American dance rock band The Slants–and potentially the Washington Redskins.

Simon Tam, the band’s frontman, filed a lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied his application for a trademark for the name “The Slants.” The agency cited the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademarks “which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The court ruled in an 8-0 decision that the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the majority opinion of the court, said Tam chose the name of the band “to ‘reclaim’ the term and drain its denigrating force.” According to Alito, the ban on offensive trademarks “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The federal government had argued that trademarks are government speech, but Alito wrote to the contrary, saying “trademarks are private, not government speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer were in agreement on the majority opinion.

While the justices reached a unanimous judgement, they were split on why they believed it violated the first amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote that the measure in question constitutes “viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in January when the court heard the case.

The Slants celebrated the victory with a lengthy statement following the ruling. “The Supreme Court has vindicated First Amendment rights not only for our The Slants, but all Americans who are fighting against paternal government policies that ultimately lead to viewpoint discrimination,” wrote Tam.

Tam said the band never considered itself a political group, but that “the establishment of an Asian American band was a political act in of itself.” As a result, the band has integrated activism into their work by raising awareness and funds for issues affecting Asian Americans.

“Music is the best way we know how to drive social change: it overcomes social barriers in  a way that mob-mentality and fear-based political rhetoric never can,” Tam said.

The Slants’ trademark case could also impact other controversially named groups like the Washington Redskins, which has been in jeopardy of losing its team name for being racially offensive.

In 2014, the Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademark because the team’s name is a derogatory term for Native Americans. The Redskins appealed the case, but the federal appeals court had delayed hearing it until the Supreme Court ruled in Tam’s case.

Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said the Supreme Court’s decision “resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government.”

“The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion,” said Blatt.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Says Offensive Trademarks are Protected by Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Princeton University–the prestigious Ivy League institution whose famous alumni include Woodrow Wilson, Michelle Obama, and Queen of Genovia Amelia Mignonette Thermopolis Renaldi–is suing the Department of Education in an attempt to block the release of its admissions data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), according to Buzzfeed News.

The lawsuit is an attempt to hinder the anti-affirmative action organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), a nonprofit whose mission is to remove race-based college admissions standards and is accusing Princeton of practicing anti-Asian bias in its admissions. The organization seeks to use a FOIA request to prove its accusations by releasing documents that Princeton gave to the DOE during a long investigation by the department’s Office for Civil Rights into anti-Asian discrimination that concluded in 2015. The investigation determined that this bias did not exist.

According to Buzzfeed, Princeton claims that it turned those admissions documents over to the department under the condition that sensitive data would be kept private, and that if the data were to be released, the department would be in violation of the Trades Secrets Act. SFFA perceives Princeton’s lawsuit as an inherent admission of guilt; however, the logic of that perception does not totally check out, for Princeton could not want to release the documents because it would reveal practices that are just bad PR, such as admission preferences for children of alumni or for celebrities.

Speaking to USA Today, Daniel Day, a spokesman for Princeton, said that the university filed the lawsuit “to honor the promise of confidentiality we make to all applicants and their families . . . [and] so future applicants will be willing to provide materials to [the university] knowing the confidentiality of their materials will be respected.”

This is not SFFA’s first attempt to reveal information about the admissions practices of Ivy League institutions, having also filed similar lawsuits against Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill. SFFA filed a lawsuit in 2014 against Harvard, alleging that the university employed discriminatory practices in its undergraduate admissions process.

While progress has been slow–mainly due to the case being put on hold in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin–some action has been taken. In September, a district court judge ordered Harvard to release six years worth of “comprehensive data” on its undergraduate admissions process. This order came shortly after Harvard attempted to get the suit dismissed.

In December, two Asian American high school seniors and Harvard applicants, working in conjunction with Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, petitioned a federal judge to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court). This  would allow them to file amicus briefs, participate in oral arguments, and submit evidence, according to a report from NBC News.

“We refuse to be used as a wedge by outside players stoking the insecurities of newer Asian immigrants, provoking them to lash out at the very programs that have helped communities of color gain access to higher education,” Nicole Ochi, supervising attorney for Advancing Justice-Los Angeles, said in a statement reported by NBC News.

The Harvard Crimson reported that 22.2 percent of those admitted into Harvard’s class of 2021 are Asian American students. While much has been said about Asians who oppose affirmative action–particularly in the Fisher vs. University of Texas at Austin ruling–polls show that a majority of the Asian American community still support the practice.

Last year, the Asian American Voter Survey found that, among respondents, 64 percent said that they favor affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities gain better access to higher education. A mere 25 percent of respondents disagreed with the practice.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Princeton Sues the Federal Government to Protect Admissions Data appeared first on Law Street.