High Court Refuses Redskins Name Complaint

Move Ends Latest Round in 17-year Court Battle between Team and Group of American Indians Who Say Name is Offensive

(AP)  The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from a group of Native Americans who think the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins football team is offensive.

The high court on Monday turned away an appeal from Suzan Shown Harjo. That ends the latest round in the 17-year court battle between the Redskins and a group of American Indians who want them to change their name.

Harjo and her fellow plaintiffs have been working since 1992 to have the Redskins trademarks declared invalid. They initially won - the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the trademarks in 1999. But U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned the ruling in 2003 in part because the suit was filed decades after the first Redskins trademark was issued in 1967.

The U.S. Court of Appeals then sent the case back to Kollar-Kotelly, noting that the youngest of the plaintiffs was only 1 year old in 1967 and therefore could not have taken legal action at the time.

But Kollar-Kotelly rejected that argument, saying the youngest plaintiff turned 18 in 1984 and therefore "waited almost eight years" after coming of age to join the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals upheld that decision in May, and the Supreme Court now has refused to review that decision.

This doesn't end the legal battle, however. The plaintiffs have a backup plan: A group of six American Indians ranging in age from 18 to 24 filed essentially the same claim two years ago, but the new case has been on hold until this one was resolved.

None of the judges has commented on whether the Redskins name is offensive or racist, instead holding in favor of the football team on legal technicalities.

The case is Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 09-326.

[kansas1946]

I have thought a lot about this. We have a highschool team in our city of the same name, and of course, we are Chief's fans. I always could sort of understand the redskin problem, although look at the team emblem. You couldn't get a more handsome, proud, strong, looking human, than the Native American that is portrayed. I never understood though why there were protests at all of the Chief's games over the same issues until I hear one Native American explain the problem. During half-time they had a show that kind of parodied Native American dances etc., and he said that many of those elements in the show were sacred religios pratices of the Indians. He asked how people would like it if Jesus was running around getting chased by cowboys and comical parodies done of the crucifixion. That I understood, and I don't know if whatever was objectionale has changed, but I haven't heard a lot of negatives lately about the Chiefs. Maybe Native Americans should just embrace the term "redskin" be proud of their skin, own the word. After all, they are certainly getting their revenge via casinos. :o)

[whjohnsonjr]

It is offensive and insensitive, but not racist unless it damages someone's pursuit of happiness. This is not an issue for the courts unless it denies access to prosperity or protection of law. Some folks just don't care about being insensitive. Boo Hoo.

[love2ridend]

If you do not think Redskin is not racist. Go to a bar close to a reservation and yell how are you redskins doing. Wait to see what happens.

[bobby1799]

Here up in Edmonton, we have football team named Edmonton Eskimo's. now would this be considered racist, or a hockey team Canucks, which we Canadians take pride in being called Canucks. But then our only baseball team is called the "Blue Jays" I wonder if the bird groups find that offencive.

I think in this day and age, we all have to adjust to each other. If you find the name of Washington Redskins offencive, then don't watch them play or by any products with their name on it.

Why is it that everyone wants to sue for money instead of going out and earning it.

[Mustache_Outlaw]

So from what I am reading, redskin is a derogatory term ? So it racist to call a sunburned person redskin ?? Sunburned people are the only red skinned people I have ever seen... Are Indians not brown ? Or am I color blind ?

[native_warrior_USMC]

I find it amazing that in this day and age where it is "racist" to wear a rebel flag or to paint yourself black and dress up like Lil'Wayne, and where a judge even found it offensive to refer to a black hole as a black hole, that people put up a fuss when it comes to anything other than hispanics or blacks. Why Do we coddle the blacks and hispanics so much? Is it because they have more backing and legal support? Is it more acceptible to support blacks then Native Americans? I'm "Indian" and frankly, I could care less if it was the Redskins, Savages, or Injuns. Only now, instead of 'offering' equal rights to every race, it's affecting someone's billion dollar pocketbook and no one wants to change it. If you're going to coddle one race, coddle them all. Get rid of the Redskins moniker or lay off the ones who want to wear/fly the rebel flag. Suck it up, people. Being offended is a part of life.

[love2ridend]

Native americans never had the same voice like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I like neither but they did have away of accusing everybody as racist and getting there way.

[linfinster]

Wow! Great points! But look who's sucking up the money about all of this?! The Lawyers! They can keep cases going for a long time, as you see here. And it's doubtful they will ever get to the discriminatory factor because it would cost so much to change it. Surely they could suck it up and move on!

[maistir]

The strangest thing about this controversy is that these names were first taken as tributes to the alleged bravery of American Indians, all as a consequence of the Europeans' mistake that Indians were "noble" in their uncorrupted state of nature apart from the harm done to civilized races by society.

[endurorob_5]

"Redskin" is a derogatory term.

[maistir]

The word "redskin" (note the lower case) applied contemptuously to an American Indian may even be more than derogatory; it may be a fighting word. But it is being applied here to a sports team with reddish maroon uniforms as an honorific term, unless, of course, you believe that owners and fans like to insult their team. Why, then have a march called "Hail to the Redskins"?

[outwestbutnotca]

Well, I guess we can all breath easier now knowing that all of the really important issues of our age have been taken care of and we have time for things like......this. Go ahead and reneme them the Washington Honkeys, or WASPS. I'm all good with that. Some of us don't have thin skin, whatever color it is.

[endurorob_5]

Although I do not think the courts have a place in determining whether something is racially offensive, we still do have freedom of speach. I do find it intersting that a city whose majority is made up of a minority that is exceptionally sensative to offensive racial terms has no problem having the name of their premier professional sports team being a derogatory term for American Indians.

[ianlou]

Let's see.

How about a team called the Blackskins?
Is there a difference between The Redskins and The Blackskins?

My high school dropped it's Redskin name years ago.

[AOCGUY]

What is your point? If you don't like the name don't watch the team, don't by their licensed products. If you are offended - well that's too bad. No one has the right to not be offended. The Redskins are a privately owned franchise and are breaking no laws by retaining their legal trademark and name. They can call themselves whatever they like, although this year the Washington Losers would be more appropriate.

[wyodutch]

It isn't any of my concern that "your" high school was so lacking in intestinal fortitude that it folded like a slab of wet cardboard in order to be politically correct.