Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Supreme Court’s Vague Definition of Government Speech

7/18/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Lavi Ben Dor
Lavi Ben Dor is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania concentrating in finance and marketing.


The First Amendment to the Constitution clearly lays out the United States governmental commitment to unrestricted speech: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” [1] As a result, the government faces significant limits in attempting to restrict the speech of private citizens. But what happens when it is the government itself that is speaking?

The idea of government speech recently faced scrutiny in the Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam. [2] The Court addressed a trademark application made by Simon Tam for the name of his band, “The Slants,” which had been denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The PTO rejected the request under the Lanham Act, which includes a provision banning trademarks that “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any people, arguing that the term “slant” has a history of being used as a slur against Asian Americans. [2, 3]
In litigating this case, the prosecution claimed that trademarks constitute the speech of the federal government rather than the applicant, and therefore that trademarks are not under the purview of the First Amendment. Although the Court rejects this argument, saying that “[t]he Federal Government does not dream up these marks, and it does not edit marks submitted for registration,” it is a very significant one. [2]

Under the Supreme Court’s rulings, the government cannot restrict private speech in favor of one opinion or viewpoint over others—that is, it must exercise viewpoint neutrality. [4] But it would be odd to expect the government to act in the same way toward its own speech. If a particular administration had to devote equal energy to arguing both for and against legislation,  it would likely accomplish few policy goals. Thus, if individual speech constitutes that of the government, the Court maintains the government’s right to regulate; but if individual speech is ruled private, the government cannot enact inequitable regulation.

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Slants in Matal v. Tam, finding that trademarks constitute private and not government speech. Other related rulings; however, have not proven so favorable to advocates of free speech

In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Court allowed the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to issue a specialty license plate for the Sons of Confederate Veterans that featured a Confederate flag. [5] The majority’s rationale was that license plates are government speech, arguing that states have used such plates to promote its agendas (such as encouraging tourism) and that the placement of the state’s name on the license plates and their mandatory status makes them “essentially, government IDs.” Thus, it does not have to exercise viewpoint neutrality and may ban specialty plates.

Similarly, the Court found in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum that the government may refuse to install a monument in a public park because “[w]hen a government entity arranges for the construction of a monument, it does so because it wishes to convey some thought or instill some feeling in those who see the structure.” [6] Thus, those statutes fall under the purview of the government’s speech, and their display is left to government discretion.

The discrepancy between these cases and Matal v. Tam highlights the lack of a consistent standard of government speech—public parks and specialty license plates are speech by the government, yet government-issued trademarks are expressions by individuals. The Court is firm on what the government can and cannot do in either scenario, but it seems to follow a rather case-by-case approach in distinguishing between the two.

These cases demonstrate  the muddiness of  this area of law. On the one hand, the Supreme Court argues that the government is uninvolved in the creation of trademarks, but on the other, no phrase or design can claim the ™ symbol without the approval of the government—in the same way that no driver can have a license without state permission. In addition, while states do issue and affix their names to license plates, it seems a stretch that states align themselves with  every specialty plate they issue, as the Supreme Court suggests. As Samuel Justice Alito highlights in an appendix to his dissent in Walker, does the state of Texas really endorse Dr. Pepper, RE/MAX, the YMCA, Brigham Young University and the University of Notre Dame? [5]

Taking the Court’s logic to an extreme, it is possible to imagine many negative outcomes: “Does this mean that the government can put any message it wants on license plates and require that people have that on their cars? ... Could a city library choose to have only books by Republican authors by saying that it is the government speaking? Could a city allow a pro-war demonstration in a city park while denying access to an antiwar demonstration simply by adopting the former as its government speech?” [7] Although these situations seem unlikely, recent Supreme Court rulings are ambiguous, leaving open the possibility of them becoming a reality.

The Court should address this dilemma the next time it takes on a government speech case, so that the question of private versus government speech may be resolved and future conflicts may be evaluated under one consistent principle.

[1] U.S. Const. Amend. I.
[2] Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017).
[3] Chappell, Bill. “The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute.” NPR, June 19, 2017. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute
[4] Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384, 394 (1993).
[5] Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).
[6] Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009).
[7] Chemerinsky, Erwin. “The Troubling Government Speech Doctrine.” ACSBlog, June 19, 2015. https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-troubling-government-speech-doctrine
Photo Credit: Flickr User

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.


​
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​