Ken Shima of the band The Slants warms up during a recording session in Eugene, Ore., in December 2016. The band is challenging the Patent Office's decision to reject a trademark for their name, arguing that the government cannot make the decision on what kind of speech is disparaging. MUST CREDIT: Photo for The Washington Post by Amanda Lucier
Ken Shima of the band The Slants warms up during a recording session in Eugene, Ore., in December 2016. The band is challenging the Patent Office's decision to reject a trademark for their name, arguing that the government cannot make the decision on what kind of speech is disparaging. MUST CREDIT: Photo for The Washington Post by Amanda Lucier Credit: photograph for The Washington Post — Amanda Lucier

Eugene, Ore — The government doesn’t know what to make of the Slants, the all Asian-American, Chinatown dance-rock band at the center of this term’s most vexing Supreme Court free-speech case.

One branch of the federal government has for years fought the band’s effort to register a trademark for its cheeky name. In a case going before the justices this week, the Patent and Trademark Office argues that a decades-old law forbids official recognition of trademarks that “may disparage” members of a particular ethnic group — in the Slants’ case, fellow Asians.

But other parts of the government love the Slants. The Defense Department sent the group to Bosnia and Kosovo to entertain troops; MPs were called when the party went on too long.

The White House is into them, too: The Slants were part of a compilation of Asian-American artists that is part of an anti-bullying initiative — “deeply ironic,” says band founder Simon Tam, because the song chosen is “an open letter to the Trademark Office.”

Which must be a first for a Supreme Court plaintiff.

At Track Town Records in this college town, where the Slants were putting finishing touches on their new EP, “The Band Who Must Not Be Named,” Tam reflected on the mixed reaction.

“One branch of government is celebrating us for our work in the Asian American community, and the other area of government is calling us racist,” he said. “But I’m kind of used to it at this point.”

Contradictions abound in the case, Lee v. Tam. For one, a victory for the Slants would be a godsend for the Washington Redskins, whose legal battle to hold on to its revoked trademark has been put on hold pending the outcome. The band members abhor the Washington nickname and wince when the team’s fate is linked to their own.

Another oddity, at least to the band: The Trademark Office has registered several versions of the word “slant,” but turned down Tam’s application specifically because of the band’s Asian-American connection.

Some Asian-American groups support Tam’s attempt to reappropriate a slur and make it a point of pride, as other artists of color have done. Tam’s cause has united the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative religious law organization Alliance Defending Freedom.

But groups of minority lawyers oppose them, and a coalition of liberal, minority members of Congress say that the First Amendment shouldn’t force the federal government to give a stamp of approval to hateful speech.

Today the Slants, the worry goes, tomorrow the n-word.

It’s a free country, and the Slants can call themselves whatever they want, Acting Solicitor General Ian Heath Gershengorn wrote in his brief to the court. But the government is under no obligation to provide the band with the legal protection and benefits that comes with trademark registration.