Objectors To Religious Motto on License Plates May Cover the Motto

In Griggs v. Graham, (SD MS, March 2, 2023), plaintiffs objected to the design of the default Mississippi license plates that included the state seal, a part of which was the motto "In God We Trust."  Specialty plates that carry alternative designs are more expensive, and are not available at all for trailers, RVs and motorcycles. The court, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Wooley v. Maynard, refused to require the state to issue separate non-religious license plates, saying in part:

[A]s in Wooley, the Plaintiffs have articulated a violation of their First Amendment free speech rights. They cannot be compelled to display “In God We Trust” on their license plate. 

In Wooley, however, the Supreme Court did not require New Hampshire to create a blank license plate for persons who objected to “Live Free or Die.” No, the remedy in that case was an injunction blocking New Hampshire “from arresting and prosecuting [the Wooleys] at any time in the future for covering over [the objectionable] portion of their license plates... [T]he Supreme Court put the burden of compliance on the objectors—they were allowed to cover up the message—and then enjoined the state criminal law that penalized that action....

In Count II of their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the State has breached its duty of neutrality by elevating persons who believe in God while simultaneously “demonstrat[ing] . . . hostility toward the Plaintiffs and other Mississippi car owners who lack religious beliefs.”...

The Plaintiffs no doubt believe that more recent free exercise cases promise them greater rights to neutrality than this single 1977 case....  [I]f their desire is to overturn Wooley, they will have to seek that relief from a higher court.

Suit Challenges "In God We Trust" On Mississippi License Plates

Suit was filed yesterday in a Mississippi federal district court by atheist and secular humanist plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of Mississippi including the state seal-- which carries the motto "In God We Trust" -- on its standard license plate. The complaint (full text) in Griggs v. Graham, (SD MI, filed 6/22/2021) alleges violations of both the free speech and free exercise clauses, saying in part:

The Standard Tag ... sends an ideological message endorsed by ... the State of Mississippi.... The Defendant enforces Mississippi statutes and maintains regulations, policies, practices, and customs that require a car owner to display license tags delivering the State of Mississippi’s chosen ideological message....

The statutes, rules, policies, practices, and customs enforced by Defendant ... are not neutral. Not only is “IN GOD WE TRUST” an expressly religious message, but the public statements of Mississippi officials ... demonstrate that hostility toward the Plaintiffs and other Mississippi car owners who lack religious beliefs was a motivation for selecting the current Standard Tag design.

WLOX reports on the lawsuit.

Disabled Veteran Sues Over Personalized License Plate

A lawsuit was filed Monday in a Kentucky federal district court by Shaun DeWaters, a disabled Marine Corps combat veteran, against the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. As reported by the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Kentucky Division of Motor Vehicle Licensing informed DeWaters that the personalized license plate which he has had for more than 12 years no longer complies with Kentucky law. According to the state, the plate which reads "INFDL" violates the ban on personalized plates that discriminate, represent a political belief or promote a specific faith, religion or anti-religion.  DeWaters says that troops in Iraq and Afghanistan took the label "Infidel" as a badge of honor after the enemy used the label for American troops. The lawsuit alleges that the ban on DeWaters license plate that was invoked when DeWaters attempted to transfer it to a new vehicle amounts to an infringement of 1st Amendment free speech rights.

State Must Issue "IM GOD" Vanity License Plate

In Hart v. Thomas, (ED KY, Nov. 13, 2019), a Kentucky federal district court held that a car owner's First Amendment rights were infringed when the state refused to issue him a vanity licence plate reading "IM GOD".  The court said in part:

...[A]voidance of controversy is a valid ground for restricting speech in a nonpublic forum.... However, the Transportation Cabinet has been so inconsistent in its application of § 186.174 that it has ceased to be “consistent with [Kentucky’s] legitimate government interest” in any way. If the Transportation Cabinet genuinely wants to avoid controversy on Kentucky’s highways by preventing “promotion of any specific faith, religion, or anti-religion” from appearing on vanity plates, then it should have denied “IM4GOD”, “ASKGOD”, GR8GOD”, “LUVGOD”. But it did not.... Instead, the Transportation Cabinet has approved multiple vanity plates featuring the word “god”.... This suggests that the law as applied to Mr. Hart is neither reasonable nor viewpoint neutral. To allow such plates as “IM4GOD” and “LUVGOD” but reject “IM GOD” belies viewpoint neutrality.

FFRF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Refusal of "IM GOD" License Plate Can Be Challenged In Federal Court

In Hart v. Thomas, (ED KY, March 30, 2018), a Kentucky federal district court rejected an 11th Amendment sovereign immunity defense raised by the Secretary of the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in a suit over an application for a personalized license plate.  Plaintiff Bennie Hart had applied for a license plate reading "IM GOD", to reflect his philosophy about religion.  Kentucky refused to issue the plate on the ground that it is offensive to good taste.  Hart sued contending that his First Amendment free speech rights were infringed when his application was denied. Friendly Atheist blog has more on the decision.

Michigan Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Pro-Life License Plate

On June 30, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder vetoed SB 163 (full text), a bill that would have required the state to issue a fund-raising "Choose Life" license plate, with proceeds to be distributed to crisis pregnancy centers and similar pro-life non-profits.  In his Veto Letter (full text), the Governor said in part:

... SB 163 is not about a license plate; it's about the State of Michigan making a political statement. And that statement arouses strong emotional reaction that divides the residents of this state.

Detroit Free Press reports on the governor's action and response to it.

Suit Challenges Kentucky's Denial of "IM GOD" License Plate

The ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation yesterday announced the filing of a lawsuit in Kentucky federal district court challenging the state's refusal to approve an atheist's request for a personalized license plate carrying the letters "IM GOD".  The state said the proposed plate is "offensive to good taste and decency." The complaint (full text) in Hart v. Thomas, (ED KY, filed 11/22/2016), asserts both facial and as-applied challenges contending that the denial of the license-plate application amounts to content and viewpoint-based discrimination. The suit also challenges the Kentucky statute that allows denial of personalized plates that promote political or religious beliefs. WDRB reports on the case.

Settlement Reached Permitting "8THEIST" License Plate In New Jersey

Last week, a New Jersey federal district court approved the parties' settlement agreement (full text) in Morgan v. Martinez.  In the case,  an atheist sued New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission challenging provisions in state regulations barring issuance of personalized license plates with letters or numbers "that may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency." Authorities had refused to issue Shannon Morgan a plate with the characters "8THEIST". Under the settlement, the Commission will issue Morgan the requested plate. The settlement also stipulates that a number of other specific alphanumeric combinations reflecting humanism, feminism and LGBT concerns are consistent with the Commission's regulations. The Commission also agreed to pay $75,000 in damages.  Americans United issued a press release discussing the settlement.

In Utah, "In God We Trust" License Plate Now Costs Less

As reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, Utah Governor Gary Herbert on Monday signed into law H.B. 127 (full text), making the state's "In God We Trust" license plates available for the standard licence plate fee. The law removes the prior $5 specialty plate surcharge for this plate design. Three plate designs are now available for the standard fee.  In signing the bill, Herbert referred to Utah's creation by people seeking refuge from religious persecution. As reported on the Governor's blog, he added: "Our nation’s motto bears extra importance at a time when free worship of God and religious rights are being challenged."

4th Circuit Upholds North Carolina's "Choose Life" License Plates

In ACLU of  North Carolina v. Tennyson, (4th Cir., March 10, 2016), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision upheld North Carolina's decision to issue specialty "Choose Life" license plates even though the state refused to also issue a pro-choice specialty plate.  The case was on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court with instructions to to the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.  In reconsidering the case, the 4th Circuit's majority opinion said in part:

The specialty license plate program at issue here is substantively indistinguishable from that in Walker, and the Walker Court’s analysis is dispositive of the issues in this case. Accordingly, we now conclude that specialty license plates issued under North Carolina’s program amount to government speech and that North Carolina is therefore free to reject license plate designs that convey messages with which it disagrees.

Judge Wynn dissenting said in part:

I refuse to believe that with Walker, the Supreme Court meant to force us to choose that the mule in this case is either a horse or a donkey. Instead, Walker’s holding, when narrowly understood, does not lead to the conclusion that the North Carolina specialty plate speech at issue here constitutes pure government speech. On the contrary ..., it presents mixed speech—with private speech components that prohibit viewpoint discrimination.

U.S. Law Week reports on the decision.

2nd Circuit Withdraws Earlier License Plate Opinion In Light of Supreme Court's Walker Decision

In May in Children First Foundation, Inc. v. Fiala (full text), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to issue custom license plates carrying the slogan "Choose Life."  In reaching its conclusion the court held that custom license plates constitute private speech. Subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court in the Walker case held that specialty license plates are government speech. (See prior posting.) Now in Children First Foundation, Inc. v. Fiala, (2d Cir., Aug. 5, 2015), the 2nd Circuit granted a petition for rehearing, withdrew portions of its earlier opinion, vacated the district court's opinion and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings n light of the Walker decision. New York Law Journal reports on the court's latest action.

10th Circuit: Oklahoma's License Plate Design Survives Compelled Speech Challenge

In Cressman v. Thompson, (10th Cir., Aug. 4, 2015), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a compelled speech challenge to Oklahoma's standard vehicle license plates that depict a Native American shooting an arrow towards the sky. Plaintiff claims that the depiction is based on a sculpture derived from a Native American legend, and that, in violation of his Christian beliefs, it teaches there are multiple gods and the arrow is an intermediary for prayer.

Judge Holmes' majority opinion held that even though the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Walker decision held that license plates are government speech, that does not settle the question of whether plaintiff has been compelled to appear to endorse the government's message. He went on:

at bottom, Mr. Cressman’s claim fails because he cannot demonstrate that the Native American image is, in fact, speech to which he objects. At least in the context of its mass reproduction on Oklahoma’s standard vehicle license plate, the Native American image is not an exercise of self-expression entitled to pure-speech protection. The image may constitute symbolic speech, but the only conceivable message a reasonable observer would glean from the license plate is one to which Mr. Cressman emphatically does not object—namely, a message that communicates Oklahoma’s Native American culture and heritage.

Judge McHugh concurring objected to the majority's focus on whether the depiction involved pure speech or symbolic expression. She said in part:

[O]nce it is determined the license plate is speech, the restrictions on the Oklahoma government’s right to compel a private individual to carry its message apply equally, irrespective of whether the individual is compelled to speak through words, actions, symbols, or gestures....

As the majority has explained in detail, Mr. Cressman does not disagree with the message Oklahoma intended to convey with its standard license plate.... And he has directed us to no evidence supporting his assertion that third parties would interpret the graphic as a message promoting pantheism, the message with which he disagrees.

AP reports on the decision.

Supreme Court Holds Specialty License Plates Are "Government Speech"

Today in Walker v. Texas Division. Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., (Sup. Ct., June 18, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board to reject an application by Sons of Confederate Veterans for the issuance of a specialty license plate design featuring a Confederate battle flag. The majority in an opinion by Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan) held the specialty plates are government speech, and that "when government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says."  The majority, relying largely on its 2009 Summum decision, said the history of license plates show that they have largely communicated state messages and their design is controlled by and closely identified in the public mind with the state. The majority added:

Constitutional and statutory provisions outside of the Free Speech Clause may limit government speech.... And the Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government’s speech if, for example, the government seeks to compel private persons to convey the government’s speech. But, as a general matter, when the government speaks it is entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and it carries out its duties on their behalf. 

Justice Alito's dissenting opinion (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Kennedy) argued that the 350 varieties of specialty plates issued by the state of Texas are not seen as expressions of state policy:

If a car with a plate that says “Rather Be Golfing” passed by at 8:30 am on a Monday morning, would you think: “This is the official policy of the State—better to golf than to work?” 

Challenge To Refusal of "8THEIST" Vanity Plate May Proceed

In Morgan v. Martinez, (D NJ, May 12, 2015), an atheist seeking to express her beliefs sued the head of the New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Commission challenging provisions in state regulations barring issuance of personalized license plates with letters or numbers"that may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency."  Until plaintiff Shannon Morgan filed suit, the VMC refused to issue her a plate with the characters "8THEIST". The court held that Morgan has standing to bring the suit and refused to dismiss on the merits, concluding that she Morgan adequately stated claims of facial overbreadth, vagueness that encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and prior restraint.

5th Circuit: Designs of Specialty Plates Are Private Speech Protected By 1st Amendment; Cert. Filed On Similar Issue

In Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Vandergriff, (5th Cir., July 14, 2014), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held, in a 2-1 decision, that messages on state specialty license plates are private speech, not government speech.  The majority went on to conclude that the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when, because many members of the public found the design offensive, it rejected a vanity plate design that included the Confederate flag. The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports on the decision.

Meanwhile, ADF announced that a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last Friday in Berger v. American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina. In the case, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that messages on vanity plates are private speech, held that North Carolina engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when it specifically authorized a "Choose Life" specialty license plate and refused to issue a pro-choice specialty plate. (See prior posting.)

Atheist Sues New Jersey Over Refusal of Vanity License Plate

A New Jersey woman yesterday filed suit in federal district court against the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission over its refusal to issue her a vanity license plate reading "8THEIST".  The complaint (full text) in Morgan v. Martinez, (D NJ, filed 4/17/2014), contends that in rejecting the plate because it "may carry connotations offensive to good taste and decency" the state violated plaintiff's rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments.  The state was willing to issue a vanity plate reading "BAPTIST".  Americans United issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Pastor Loses Claim That Oklahoma License Plates Force Him To Display Image That Violates His Beliefs

In Cressman v. Thompson, (WD OK, Jan. 14, 2014), a Oklahoma federal district court rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment compelled speech challenge to the design of Oklahoma license plates.  The plates carry an image of a Native American shooting a bow-and-arrow.  Plaintiff, a United Methodist pastor, claims the image is that of the Sacred Rain Arrow statue and conveys a message contrary to his Christian religious beliefs. He argues that the statue retells the story of a Native American who believes in sacred objects, multiple deities, the divinity of nature and the ability to use sacred objects to convince gods to change nature. The court ruled however that:

a reasonable observer would not be likely to conclude that an identifiable message was conveyed simply from the inclusion of the image on the standard state license plate. Without further research, it is simply a depiction of an Indian shooting a bow and arrow. A reasonable observer, even one living in Oklahoma, would not be likely to know of Allen Houser’s intentions or thoughts in creating the “Sacred Rain Arrow” statue or of the legend behind it, even if the observer assumed the image was an exact replica of the statue. The average Oklahoman or other reasonable observer is unlikely to have seen the specific background information plaintiff submitted or to have made the connection to the plate that plaintiff relies on.

AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.)