Podcast appearances and mentions of Lee V Tam

Good morning.  In this guest episode, Brett talks with Simon Tam, bass player of the band that fought the Lanham Act in Lee v. Tam.   Brett and Simon discuss what its like to bring a lawsuit before the Supreme Court, the state of Free Speech, the dynamics of playing in a rock band, the appropriate tenor for diss-tracks and what its like to rock on the front steps of the Supreme Court.

Anna-Rose Mathieson (California Appellate Law Group) discusses U.S. Supreme Court arguments over disparaging trademarks and free speech in Lee v. Tam; John Whitesides (Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff) chats qualified immunity and interlocutory appeals, after a terse Supreme Court reversal critiques lower courts' consistent misapplication of the doctrine.

On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Lee v. Tam. Simon Tam of The Slants, an Asian American rock band, applied to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office, but the application was denied. The Office claimed that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent,” citing the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter 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.” Tam appealed to a board within the Office but was again denied. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a panel of judges determined that the Office officials were within their rights to refuse the application. The Federal Circuit then reviewed the case en banc and found that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment and that the Office should not have refused the application. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. -- To discuss the case, we have Megan L. Brown, who is Partner at Wiley Rein LLP.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments last week in Lee v. Tam. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it "[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." The question presented by the case is whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Can a group of wrongfully-detained noncitizens sue high-ranking Bush Administration officials for violating their rights in the days following 9/11? That’s the central question in Ziglar v Abbasi, which was argued this week at the Supreme Court. On today’s episode, we hear from Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented the former detainees.  We also consider Lee v. Tam, another big case argued at the high court on Wednesday. It centers on a trademark claim by the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants. That claim was denied on the grounds that the name was disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” Simon Tam joins us to tell the story of his band’s name, and to make the case that the government isn’t equipped to be deciding who is and isn’t using language disparagingly.    Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Blue Apron. Blue Apron’s meal kits are delivered right to your door, and make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Can a group of wrongfully-detained noncitizens sue high-ranking Bush Administration officials for violating their rights in the days following 9/11? That’s the central question in Ziglar v Abbasi, which was argued this week at the Supreme Court. On today’s episode, we hear from Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional Rights, who represented the former detainees.  We also consider Lee v. Tam, another big case argued at the high court on Wednesday. It centers on a trademark claim by the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants. That claim was denied on the grounds that the name was disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” Simon Tam joins us to tell the story of his band’s name, and to make the case that the government isn’t equipped to be deciding who is and isn’t using language disparagingly.    Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial here. Amicus is brought to you by The Great Courses Plus, a video learning service that offers lectures on all kinds of topics. Get the first full month FREE when you sign up by going to TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Blue Apron. Blue Apron’s meal kits are delivered right to your door, and make cooking at home easy. Get your first THREE meals FREE by going to BlueApron.com/amicus. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Follow us on Facebook here. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Deborah Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown University discuss Lee v. Tam, a big First Amendment case. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Can the government police speech it thinks is offensive, even when members of the group the government seeks to protect disclaim any offense? Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act allows the government to deny trademark registration to "disparaging" speech. On Wednesday, January 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Lee v. Tam, a case challenging the constitutionality of this statute. -- In Lee, an Asian-American rock band called “The Slants” was denied trademark registration after the Patent and Trademark Office found the trademark disparaging to Asians. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision. But the en banc Federal Circuit—without being asked—decided to vacate that decision and consider whether § 2(a) violates the First Amendment. The full Federal Circuit ultimately reversed the panel decision. The federal government then asked the Supreme Court to weigh in. -- Is the Court likely to affirm the Federal Circuit decision striking down the disparagement clause as violative of the First Amendment? And what will be the implications if it does? Megan Brown and Dwayne Sam of Wiley Rein LLP attended the oral arguments and offered their impressions and predictions during this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call. -- Featuring: Ms. Megan L. Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP and Mr. Dwayne D. Sam, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP.

Deborah Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and Rebecca Tushnet of Georgetown University discuss Lee v. Tam, a big First Amendment case. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast. Email us at editor@constitutioncenter.org. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster at Panoply.fm. Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more. This show was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen.

Lee v. Tam | 01/18/17 | Docket #: 15-1293

This term the Court considers the case of Lee v. Tam, which considers whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), is constitutional. Section 2(a) prohibits the registration of a trademark that “may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” In this case, the Government denied a trademark to "The Slants," an Asian-American rock band based in Portland. In choosing to name the band "The Slants," Simon Tam sought to make a statement on discrimination against Asian-Americans.