The Washington Redskins Finally Get Back to Their Winning Ways
Hail to the Redskins!
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has given the Washington Redskins something they couldn’t seem to get on their own lately: a meaningful victory. In Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo, et al., No. 03-7162 (decided May 15, 2009), the appellate court affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that, on remand, reassessed its analysis under the doctrine of laches. The district court found that, because the plaintiffs brought the suit 8 years later than they could have, the loss of evidence due to the death of the former Redskins president, Edward Bennett, and the economic prejudice that would be suffered due to the delay was too much to overcome. The appellate court, reviewing under the standard of abuse of discretion, refused to overrule the judgment of the district court.
EDIT September 27, 2009: In response to some comments I received, here is some additional information. You can find the last district court decision here. (The district court is where the trial occurs, and almost all the fact finding is done.) Most criticisms of the opinion were made by people refusing to read the 10-page appellate court case, so I doubt those same critics will be willing to read the 84-page district court opinion. The best I can do, though, is point out that the district court found "substantial evidence" that the term "Redskin(s)" had lost its insulting meaning no less than 60 years ago, even among American Indians. It is clear that this archaic meaning (which, by the way, was most likely created by an American Indian), was resurrected in order for the plaintiffs to get their 15 minutes of fame. Moreover, though not discussed in the case at length, the owner at the time of the mark's registration went out of his way to visit with American Indian leaders before registering the mark, and those leaders were appreciative of how the team had improved the image of American Indians through the use of the term "Redskin(s)" and their various logos.
Not only do the plaintiffs in this case have terribly unclean hands, but they have done a tremendous disservice to the cause they claim to represent. I guess that's not bad for them considering they get to be on television and radio.
BTW, the Supreme Court has granted the Plaintiff's appeal.
Full disclosure: I'm a lifelong Washington Redskins fan, but I have zealously defended the use of Orangemen (hate Syracuse), Redmen (hate St. John's), and Fighting Irish (I'm 1/4 Irish, and find it interesting that they usually receive no attention in this discussion).
