The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed its role as the protector of capitalist interests when it refused on Nov. 16 to hear an appeal in Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc.
 |
The case, which has been ongoing since 1992, is a lawsuit by Suzan[S1] Harjo and other Native Americans against the Washington Redskins professional football franchise challenging the “Redskins” trademark. Federal law prohibits trademarks that “may disparage … persons, living or dead … or bring them into contempt, or disrepute[S2] .”
The term “redskin” is an old slur against Native Americans, originating in the scalps and other body parts hired murderers used as proof of their ethnic cleansing. The National Congress of American Indians[S3] , a supporter of the suit, stated that “to many Native Americans, the term ‘Redskins’ is associated with the barbaric practice of scalping.” By suing to force the franchise’s loss of trademark, Harjo and others hoped to force them to change the name.
The lawsuit was filed after what NCAI called “decades” of unofficial attempts to convince Washington owners to change the franchise name. The group has successfully brought about name changes at hundreds of high schools and colleges since their campaign against disparaging names began in 1968.
In 1992, Harjo and the others petitioned the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board , which agreed to their petition, but the franchise appealed to the U.S. District Court and won on technicalities stemming from the time between the original granting of the trademark, 1967, and the petition. This decision was ultimately upheld on appeal, leaving the Supreme Court as the last resort.
Predictably, the Washington franchise, which was originally owned by avowed racist George Preston Marshall and was the last National Football League team to integrate—and only under threat by the federal government—has always refused to consider a name change. While claiming on the one hand that the name is meant to “honor” Native Americans, Washington’s lawyers cited the large costs put forth in marketing and protecting that trademark.
In refusing to hear the plaintiffs’ case, the Supreme Court tacitly sided with the Washington franchise, continuing its legacy of protecting racism and capitalist interests.
A similar case brought six years ago, Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., has been on hold pending the resolution of Harjo and is expected to be the next legal battlefront. The capitalist courts will not side with Native Americans of their own accord. How can this struggle be won?
We must continue to build awareness of the vile history of oppression that underlies this legal dispute and the reactionary role played by the courts; we must continue to build solidarity and support for what is not just a cause for our Native American sisters and brothers, but a cause for all who despise the scourge of racism; we must continue to win over working-class people who have nothing to gain from these injustices to our side.
The victories we score on these fronts are what make legal victories not only possible but inevitable, the means by which the capitalist courts concede defeat in a struggle that they, in practice, already lost.
