Matal v. Tam
137 S. Ct. 1744 · Decided June 19, 2017 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Matal v. Tam was decided on June 19, 2017 unanimously (8–0). The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “First Amendment, miscellaneous” in the First Amendment area. SCDB records that the Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional.
Read the opinion
- CourtListener (Free Law Project) — opinion text
- Supreme Court of the United States — slip opinions, October Term 2016
Case details
- Citations
- 137 S. Ct. 1744 · 198 L. Ed. 2d 366 · 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3872
- Docket number
- 15-1293
- Decided
- June 19, 2017
- Argued
- January 18, 2017
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 8–0 (unanimous)
- Majority opinion
- Samuel A. Alito Jr.
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- First Amendment, miscellaneous
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Legal provision
- First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Held unconstitutional
- An act of Congress
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Majority | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor | Special concurrence | |
| Justice Elena Kagan | Special concurrence |
Did not participate: Neil M. Gorsuch.
Full case caption
Matal v. Tam
SCDB identifiers: case 2016-040, docket 2016-040-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “First Amendment, miscellaneous”
- Packingham v. North CarolinaLaw held unconstitutional
- Minnesota Voters Alliance v. ManskyLaw held unconstitutional
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
- Heffernan v. City of Paterson
- Nieves v. Bartlett
- Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Cases on the same legal provision: First Amendment (speech, press, and assembly)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. BecerraLaw held unconstitutional
- Janus v. American Federation of StateAltered precedentLaw held unconstitutional
- Williams–yulee v. the Florida Bar
- Thompson v. Hebdon
- Harris v. QuinnLaw held unconstitutional
Same Term, same area (First Amendment)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman
- Packingham v. North CarolinaLaw held unconstitutional
- Trinity Lutheran Church v. ComerLaw held unconstitutional
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error