The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that the federal government has "violated the First Amendment by refusing to register trademarks that officials consider disparaging," a decision that provides a boost to the Redskins’ efforts to "hang on to the team’s controversial name," according to a front-page piece by Robert Barnes of the WASHINGTON POST. The ruling "came in a case that involved an Asian American rock group called the Slants, which tried to register the band’s name" in '11 (WASHINGTON POST, 6/20). DC-based Arnold & Porter attorney Lisa Blatt, who reps the Redskins, said that the team was "thrilled" by the ruling (WASHINGTON TIMES, 6/20). Redskins Owner Dan Snyder in a statement said, "I am THRILLED! Hail to the Redskins." But in DC, Alex Swoyer in a front-page piece reports some Native American groups "saw a difference between The Slants and the Redskins." The groups said that "no matter what the courts rule," the NFL "should step in and reject the team name." National Congress of American Indians Exec Dir Jackie Pata and Oneida Nation CEO Ray Halbritter in a joint statement said, "If the NFL wants to live up to its statements about placing importance on equality, then it shouldn’t hide behind these rulings, but should act to end this hateful and degrading slur." However, an "overwhelming majority of American Indians do not consider 'Redskins' a derogatory term" (WASHINGTON TIMES, 6/20). Josh Schiller, an intellectual property litigator who is not involved in the team’s case, "expects the team to write a letter citing the Supreme Court decision and the 4th Circuit to overturn the district court decision that upheld cancellation of the team’s federal trademark registrations" (USA TODAY, 6/20).
HOW MUCH OF A WIN FOR THE SKINS? YAHOO SPORTS' Frank Schwab wrote yesterday's decision "brought a big victory" for the Redskins (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 6/19). The AP's Stephen Whyno writes the Redskins "aren't in the clear with their team name just yet." Supreme Court precedent "may help the club in its ongoing legal battle, but the fight over the Redskins moniker will continue in social and business realms" (AP, 6/20). In N.Y., Ken Belson writes although the ruling "focused on a technical matter, it could amplify an increasingly partisan dispute at the crossroad of politics, sports and money." Leagues, colleges and high schools "continue to revisit the use of their names less because of fear of legal retribution and more out of concern about the potential impact on their brands and pushback from fans and other interest groups." The pressure on some teams "continues." In April, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said that he told the owners of the Indians that he "hoped the team would abandon its use of the Chief Wahoo logo." Some members of Congress, as well as political leaders in DC, "continue to call on the Redskins to change their name." The Redskins "may still clash with the federal government" if the team tries to build a venue on the land where RFK Stadium now sits (N.Y. TIMES, 6/20).
