I am not so sure.

Although the Tam ruling is unanimous, the concurring opinion by Kennedy joined by Ginsburgh, Sotomayor, and Kagan agreed in the judgment only. The concurring opinion reversed the Fed Cir on a different legal ground. For example, the concurring justices say, among other things, trademark is a commercial speech which is accorded less 1st Amendment protections.
If the SC were to hear the Redskin case, my guess is it will be 5-4 decision either way and not unanimous,

所有跟帖： 

• this ruling is about the same type of trademark, or not? -hello2002- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/20/2017 postreply 09:54:26

• The concurring opinion affirmed the Fed Cir Court., not reversed -akc- ♂ (0 bytes) () 06/20/2017 postreply 11:17:19

• 那5-4是干吗用的。如果是同样性质的商标，下次应该不用再去SC了。 -hello2002- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/20/2017 postreply 11:33:29

• No, Each case has to be briefed and argued and distinguished -akc- ♂ (25 bytes) () 06/20/2017 postreply 11:50:00

• 那SC那些80，90岁的老头老太们得组织工会要求改善劳动待遇了。每一个case都得这样议，一定当场吐血。 -hello2002- ♀ (0 bytes) () 06/20/2017 postreply 13:51:51