This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner (Department of Justice), according to Petitioner (Department of Justice), the case concerns the constitutionality of the Lanham Act provision that prohibits registration of scandalous trademarks.
Background and question before the Court
The case was heard in oral argument before the Supreme Court at 10:07 a.m.
Justice Sotomayor asked how the term “scandalous mark” is defined.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Department of Justice)
According to Petitioner (Department of Justice), according to Petitioner (Department of Justice), the Lanham Act’s ban on federal registration of scandalous trademarks is not a restriction on speech but a valid condition on participation in a federal program.
According to Petitioner (Department of Justice), according to Petitioner (Department of Justice), the provision is viewpoint‑neutral.
Respondent (Erik Brunetti)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
The oral argument featured questions from Justices Sotomayor, Alito, and Breyer about the definition of “scandalous mark,” the consequences of striking down the provision, and the treatment of racial slurs, as well as arguments from the petitioner that the ban is viewpoint‑neutral and not a speech restriction.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 5f4db965c27039b5f2f4-r1-647a429dea9c6705.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.