Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In RE:TAM en Banc

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided December 22, 2015No. 2014-1203Published

1ConcurrenceO’Malley, Circuit Judge

I agree that the disparagement provision of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) (“§ 2(a)”) is unconstitutional on its face. I agree, moreover, that § 2(a) cannot survive the searching constitutional scrutiny to which the majority subjects it under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. On this point, the majority rightly dispenses with this court’s precedent in In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A.1981) and its progeny. I write separately, however, because, I believe § 2(a) is also unconstitutionally vague, rendering it unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment to the United States…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  5. Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API