Is a vanity license plate considered protected speech? A woman is taking her case to the Supreme Court.

Legal Dispute Over Vanity Plates

• Background of the Case: Leah Gilliam is challenging Tennessee's decision to revoke her personalized license plate reading “69PWNDU,” arguing it represents her personal expression rather than government speech. The state initially approved the plate but later deemed it inappropriate after receiving a complaint.

• Supreme Court Precedent: The case references a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that upheld states' rights to restrict specialty license plates, which are seen as government speech. The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled similarly, stating that personalized plates also fall under government speech.

First Amendment Implications

• Arguments for Free Speech: Gilliam's attorneys contend that personalized plates should be protected as individual expression, highlighting inconsistencies across states regarding what is permissible. They argue that the ability to express personal views through vanity plates is essential for First Amendment rights.

• Potential Consequences: If the Supreme Court sides with Tennessee, it could set a precedent that allows states to selectively permit or deny messages on vanity plates, potentially leading to discrimination based on political or religious views.

State Regulations and Practices

• Tennessee's Review Process: Tennessee evaluates around 80 to 100 personalized plate applications daily, maintaining approximately 60,000 active plates while rejecting nearly 1,000 since the program's inception in 1998. The review team uses resources like the Urban Dictionary to assess the meanings of terms.

• Comparative State Practices: Other states, like Rhode Island, have faced similar issues with vanity plates, indicating a broader trend of legal challenges regarding the limits of state authority over personalized messages.

Support and Broader Implications

• Support from Free Speech Groups: Various organizations, including the ACLU and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, have backed Gilliam's appeal, arguing that the Tennessee Supreme Court's decision could lead to broader constitutional violations beyond just vanity plates.

• Expert Opinions: First Amendment experts suggest that the Supreme Court may be inclined to address the broader implications of government speech, which could affect various forms of expression beyond license plates, such as library collections and flag displays.