Blog

Latest Industry News

Supreme Court Nixes Texas Confederate-Flag License Plates

Texas license plate featuring Confederate flag

Texas license plate featuring Confederate flag

Enlarge Photo

Specialty license plates have become big business in recent years, but they’ve brought their share of troubles, too. While some plates feature innocuous school crests or happy, friendly natural landscapes, others court controversy with politically charged slogans.

That’s made things tough for DMVs, who’ve been put in the position of policing messages on plates. In making their decisions, DMVs tend to insist that license plates are state-sponsored messages, and what may be appropriate for a bumper sticker may not be the sort of thing that a state wants to put on a product that it manufactures and sells. Free-speech advocates have disagreed.

The issue came to a head this year in a case called Walker, Chairman, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, et. al. v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, et. al. Today, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in that case, and although the decision was split, it gives states the right to pick and choose the sorts of messages they send — at lease on license plates.

WALKER v. SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS

The Texas DMV solicited comments from the public, as it does on all specialty plates. Ultimately the DMV denied SCV’s application on the basis that many commenters found the design to be offensive and that the Confederate flag is frequently linked to hate groups. SCV sued.

The federal court that first heard the case handed Texas a win. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — notably, one of the nation’s most conservative courts of appeal — reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that messages on specialty license plates generally constitute free speech and can’t be rejected simply because some (or many) might find the content offensive.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Fifth Circuit in a 5-4 vote. Voting in the majority were Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor, who were joined — interestingly — by the deeply conservative Thomas. Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Scalia dissented.

In his majority opinion, Breyer wrote that license plates function much like state IDs, and are therefore, state speech. As such, the state has the right to pick and choose the message that it wants to convey on the plates, rather than presenting all sides of an issue. For support, he makes this analogy:

“How could a city government create a successful recycling program if officials, when writing householders asking them to recycle cans and bottles, had to include in the letter a long plea from the local trash disposal enterprise demanding the contrary? How could a state government effectively develop programs designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if officials also had to voice the perspective of those who oppose this type of immunization?”

Justice Alito delivered the minority opinion, in which he lamented the majority’s decision as an erosion of free-speech rights. In a fairly informal dissent, he argued that a reasonable person would never see a specialty license plate a state-sanctioned message, but one endorsed solely by the vehicle’s owner. Here’s a fairly long excerpt:

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed

Leave comments

Your email address will not be published.*



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Back to top