The U.S. Supreme Court case, Matal v. Tam (2016), involved an Asian-American rock band called The Slants who were denied a trademark for their name by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on grounds that it was disparaging to people of Asian descent. Simon Tam, the lead singer of the band, argued that they had chosen this name as a way to reclaim and take ownership of stereotypes about their race. The USPTO's decision was based on the Lanham Act which prohibits any trademarks that could be considered offensive or disparaging. However, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tam stating that this clause violated free speech rights under First Amendment protections because it amounted to viewpoint discrimination - government regulation or restriction based on opinion or attitude expressed through communication.

In the dissenting opinion for MATAL v. TAM, Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan argued that while they agreed with much of the Court's ruling regarding free speech protections under the First Amendment, they disagreed on its interpretation of disparagement in trademark law. They believed that trademarks are not private speech but rather commercial speech and thus can be regulated by government to prevent offensive or discriminatory language. The justices contended that a more nuanced approach should have been taken to balance between protecting freedom of expression and preventing hate speech or discrimination in commerce. They also expressed concern about potential misuse of this ruling to justify racial slurs or other harmful stereotypes as protected forms of expression under trademark law.