The Tennessee woman’s lawyer, challenging her personalized plate rejection for “69pwndu,” argues that the state’s rules have led to “dizzy censorship.”
I refused Florida license plate
Florida has released a list of custom license plates that it rejected in 2024.
Fox-5 Atlanta
WASHINGTON – Texas has not let President Donald Trump critics have a custom license plate with the words “Prison 45” written on it.
Michigan college football fans cannot request a plate of vanity with the words “male saxophone.”
Arizona has allowed the religious message “Jesusnm.” However, Vermont blocked “JN36TN.” This is John 3:16, a reference to biblical poetry.
Lawyers for women in Tennessee say rules about what is and is not allowed on personalized plates are often vague and could amount to “an array of dizzying censors.”
Leah Gilliam wants the court to recognize that it is expressing its views through the vanity plate, a decision that limits its ability to control its message, not the government.
Justice came to the opposite conclusion in 2015 when supporting restrictions on the design of specialist license plates to support causes or organizations. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision, and the sale of specialized plates could ban images such as Confederate flags.
“The state has long used license plates in this country to convey the government’s message,” Judge Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority.
However, Gilliam’s lawyers argue that the judges do not agree whether the same applies to letter-number combinations on personalized license plates.
“And considering that the rights to the first amendment that was changed when car owners move around the state will be changed, intervention is needed quickly,” they told the Supreme Court. “The same personalized plates appearing in cars in Maryland, Oregon, Delaware, Rhode Island, Kentucky, California and Michigan can be banned in Tennessee, Indiana and Hawaii.”
Vanity Plate revoked to refer to “sexual domination”
In Gilliam’s case, Tennessee initially approved a request for a personalized license plate with the words “69pwndu.” She said the letter referred to “Pwnd U.” She initially reflected some of her phone numbers and was not a sexual reference, she said. Gilliam later said she was an astronomy enthusiast, and “69” refers to the year of the moon landing.
However, the state received a complaint 11 years after allowing the plate, telling her that it should be revoked for referring to sexual control.
Gilliam sued, claiming that Tennessee had violated her free speech.
The Tennessee Supreme Court said the vanity plate was a government speech
The Tennessee Supreme Court said the state’s restrictions coincided with the US Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Walker v. Texas, the son of a Confederate veteran.
“Personalized alphanumeric combinations differ in some respects from special plate designs, but the faithful application of Walker’s reasoning forces them to conclude that they are government speeches,” the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled.
Most of Gilliam’s arguments are attacks on how the Supreme Court decided on the 2015 case, the court said.
“These arguments will be directed more appropriately towards the U.S. Supreme Court, the only court that has the power to overturn or repeal that precedent,” the court said.
Gilliam filed an appeal in July.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skulmetti declined to comment.
Tennessee refused about 1,000 plates
In Tennessee, personalized license plate requests are evaluated by a team of five who review 80-100 applications per day, according to court filings. The team consults the urban dictionary about the meaning of less common terms and reviews internal documents with undesirable structures.
Tennessee currently has around 60,000 active personalized plates, and has rejected almost 1,000 since the program began in 1998.
Gilliam has not challenged the state’s right to prohibit profanity, sexual or vulgar plates.
“The state can definitely do it using parameters that properly “limit” the discretion of civil servants,” her lawyer wrote.
Does “imhigh” represent the driver or condition view?
They say the state has limitations, as they don’t have the same governmental accusations as specialist plates carrying “slogans curated by the government in addition to the names of the nations,” such as “Beautiful Texas.”
In contrast, Gilliam’s lawyers said no one thinks that a license plate reading “imhigh”, “iminluv” or “imabrat” describes the nation.
“These are messages from the car owner,” they wrote, “not Tennessee.”
And unless they are protected as personal speeches, the state – for example – supports one party, but can ban another party, or allow plates that promote one religion, or promote one religion, Gilliams’ lawyers argue.
Rhode Island rethinks plates after legal challenge
Rhode Island suspended its Vanity Plate Program in 2021 that I tried to remember the plate from the Tesla owner who said “fkgas.” (Owner Sean Carroll said the tag means “fake gas,” but admitted it could be read in a different way.)
The ACLU sued on Carroll’s behalf, claiming that the automotive division could afford too much to reject the request. The judge issued a preliminary decision in Carroll’s favour, but the state is still working to update that rule.
Gilliam’s lawyers have a plausible argument that there is dramatic difference between judges about vanity plates, and that those plates are different from specialized plates, said GS Hans, First Amendment expert at Cornell Law School.
But that may not be enough for justice to be involved, he said.
If so, he said it might be because he wants to weigh more broadly on the issue of when something is eligible for a government speech, such as when libraries stock shelves or determining which groups can raise flags on government property.
“The court remains involved in the questions in the government’s speech,” Hans said.
Free speech group back appeal
The case has attracted the support of several free speech groups, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the First Amended Bar Association.
In a brief supporter of Gilliam’s appeal, these groups said the protections enjoyed by government speeches are “catnips for government officials and have strong incentives to push boundaries to free them from the burdens under the First Amendment.”
“If it endures,” the group said the Tennessee Supreme Court refused Gilliam’s case.
