Matal v. Tam: Protection of Civil Liberties

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Description of the Case
The Role of the Supreme Court
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The role of the Supreme Court in resolving cases of the violation of civil liberties is significant. Being the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States, it has the authority to review the cases ruled by the lower courts. Besides, the Supreme Court can re-examine statutes if they seem to include the statements that violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In this essay, it will be demonstrated that the power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution provides it with the right to resolve the case of violating the Bill of Rights by the Lanham Act. As a result, it enables modifying the Act and extracting its portions, contradictory to the right to freedom of speech, mentioned in the First Amendment.

Description of the Case

Simon Tam, a punk-rock musician, founded a band, all the members of which were Asian Americans. He decided to name it The Slants, seeking to register the name; however, the registration was denied. After determining the ethnicity of the bands members, the examiner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office concluded that this name would appear disparaging to Asian Americans. As he argued, the name violates Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, the principal federal trademark statute. The mentioned section of the Act states: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it & consists of & matter which may disparage & or disrepute (U. S. Trademark Law, 2013, p. 9). An amicus brief was filed, presenting the argument that paragraph 2 of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states: Congress shall make no law & abridging the freedom of speech (The United States Bill of Rights, 2015, amend. I). After the final decision of the Supreme Court, the portions of the Lanham Act were repealed. The reason for it was the resolution that the bands right to freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, was violated by the government by its denial to register the bands name.

The Role of the Supreme Court

After Simon Tam, the leading singer of the band had not succeeded in the registration of the proposed name, he contested the denial through the administrative appeals process that had no positive result as well. He then proceeded with the case in federal court, where the banc Federal Circuit stated that the case of denial of the registration violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The next step was filing an amici brief by the amici curiae, the organizations that are not participants of the case but can assist by providing necessary information or expertise related to it. In this case, among such supporting organizations were the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon, the Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Portland Lodge, the Portland Japanese American Citizens League, and the Oregon Commission of Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs.

In the amicus brief, the summary of the argument stated that the governments regulation of private speech based on viewpoint is prohibited, according to the First Amendment; discrimination based on viewpoint is a punishable offense. The law cannot tolerate the selectiveness in approving the cases of free speech, which is, in this case, the proposed name of the band. Thus, the denial in registration was an example of a violation of the Bill of Rights.

The document then reached the Supreme Court, and the final decision was made. The Court stated that the Patent and Trademark Office is obliged to evaluate the marks, including words, names, and symbols is an example of distinguishing the goods from those of others. In this process, a disparagement clause is to be applied; however, the assessment, whether the disparagement is present in the particular case, has to be examined by several steps. The Supreme Court then investigates several arguments, including the personal intention of the bands leader. As per the statement of Tam, the name was supposed, instead of implicating disparagement, to challenge the public misconceptions about Asians and make people reconsider their opinion in light of the high quality of art produced by the band. This, as well as other arguments, were used by the Supreme Court in support to make the decisions of reviewing the portions of the Lanham Act and, ultimately, to enable the band to register their name.

The importance of ruling this case is evident, considering obvious contradictions to the Bill of Rights indicated in the federal statute during the proceeding. These violations, if not identified, would potentially affect other cases of a similar kind. This case demonstrates the judiciary power granted to the Supreme Court, which includes the right of judicial review. The Supreme Court can re-examine a statute, or administrative regulations, in case of suspected violation of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The authority for judicial review was asserted by the Court in 1803, in the first case where the controversy to the Constitution as indicated in the statute (U.S. Reports: Marbury v. Madison, n.d.). The case, described above, is an example of such an authority of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

In this essay, the role of the Supreme Court in the protection of civil rights was examined. It was demonstrated that the Court is the highest authority in the court system. Moreover, it has the judiciary power to re-examine statutes and administrative regulations; the described case that resulted in reviewing the United States Trademark Law is an example of such judiciary power of the Supreme Court.

References

U.S. Reports: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). (n.d.). Web.
U. S. Trademark Law. (2013). U. S. Patent & Trademark Office. Web.
The United States Bill of Rights: First 10 amendments to the Constitution. (2015). Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Matal v. Tam: Protection of Civil Liberties

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)