Supreme Court: Offensive trademarks are free speech

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a victory to a California fashion brand whose name sounds like an obscene word. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to recognize the clothing brand on the grounds it was “immoral or scandalous,” but the justices on the high court struck down that part of federal law as a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan called the law overly broad, writing that it “violated the bedrock First Amendment principle that the government cannot discriminate against ideas that offend.” The Trump administration defended the law, arguing that it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences and could be applied in a way that was viewpoint-neutral.

The Supreme Court issued opinions in three other cases Monday. In one, it ruled that the Argus Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls, S.D., was not entitled to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture about how much money individual grocery stores get from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, more commonly known as “food stamps.” In another case, the court ruled in favor of two convicted robbers who argued that additional federal charges they faced for brandishing firearms were based on an unconstitutionally vague law. Lastly, the justices held that a seaman injured on the job could not sue for punitive damages. The court, which is nearing the end of its 2018-2019 term, is set to issue another round of opinions Wednesday, possibly in the high-profile case about adding a citizenship question to the U.S. census.