Barrett V. Thomas: Two Conservative Supreme Court Justices Can’t Agree on Constitutional Rights

After the recent ruling on the Vidal v. Elster case, Barrett called out her fellow Republican, Clarence Thomas, for ignoring the Constitution in favor of “history and tradition.” Now, their argument is shedding light on much bigger issues within the US Supreme Court.

The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the registration because Elster had not received former President Donald Trump’s consent, as required by the Lanham Act.

The act includes several clauses that explain trademark rights and violations, one of which states that no one can validate a trademark with a living person’s name (whether it’s complimentary or critical) without their consent.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously reversed the PTO’s decision, agreeing with Elster that he was well within his rights to trademark the phrase for his t-shirts.

The Supreme Court unanimously sided with the PTO, asserting that the First Amendment allows the PTO to refuse such registrations according to the Lanham Act.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that during this process, she made several important points that fellow Justice Clarence Thomas all but ignored. She also noted that she believed Thomas’ arguments to be lacking in validity, sparking a debate around the country.

Thomas emphasized that U.S. trademark law involves content-based restrictions, not viewpoint-based restrictions, highlighting the “names clause” in his reasoning.

Barrett criticized Thomas’s use of historical precedents, asserting that trademark cases from the late 19th or early 20th centuries are only “loosely related” to the present case.

Justice Barrett also complained that Justice Thomas had misinterpreted her arguments during the case, and she felt it was important to share her true opinion even after the court had made its decision.

Instead, what Justice Barrett said she ” view[ed] the content-based nature of the limited public forum as analogous to the trademark registration system. Moreover, by characterizing my argument as a conclusory statement that the limited public forum framework is ‘apt,’ Justice Thomas ignores my reasons for drawing the analogy.”

The liberal justice wrote, “I agree with Justice Barrett that, even if the majority’s historical evidence were rock solid, there is no good reason to believe that hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question.”

However, justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch agreed with Thomas wholeheartedly. Clearly, the Supreme Court is very divided, which shed light on a much bigger issue that just the trademark case at hand.

The Supreme Court is made up of nine justices, each of whom are tasked with upholding the US Constitution and consequent laws at all times, no matter their political, religious, or personal opinions.

Instead, the justices are appointed by the President of the United States. The nominees still need to be interviewed and approved by the Senate; however, it is few and far between that a president’s selection is denied.

However, while the Supreme Court Justices do have political affiliations, they are supposed to be able to put their opinions aside when ruling and follow the law above all else.

Justice Samuel Alito has made headlines off and on over the past several years for his unwavering support of former president Donald Trump, as well as his staunch belief in Christian Nationalism.

The committee, led by Democrats, has uncovered additional trips and gifts worth millions that Thomas allegedly did not report, making millions of Americans question his moral compass.

He lamented the loss of trust in the Supreme Court, especially following the leak of the Roe v. Wade decision in 2022.

However, the vast majority of the American population has lost faith in the nation’s highest court. According to Gallup data, 58% of Americans disapproved of the court last September, reflecting historic discontent amid ongoing scandals and internal disagreements among the justices.

In response to this reality, Demand Justice, and millions of Americans are calling for ethical reform in the US Supreme Court.

First, they want to restore balance by expanding the Supreme Court and ensuring there are members of both political parties. Next, they want to create term limits instead of allowing justices to serve for life. Third, they want justices to agree to meaningful ethics rules. And finally, improve the district courts below the Supreme Court to insure diversity within the entire system.

Luckily, the Senate Judiciary Committee, who oversees the Department of Justice, has taken notice and made plans for real and lasting reform in the US Supreme Court.

In fact, Durbin already has already introduced a bill that, if passed, will do exactly that:  Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.

However, because of the ongoing controversies regarding the Supreme Court, it simply gives Americans one more reason not to truth the morality or steadfastness of these appointed (and questionably unethical) leaders.