In 1977, the Court considered another compelled speech claim, this one brought by a New Hampshire couple who had three times been prosecuted for covering up the motto "Live Free or Die" on their New Hampshire license plate.  The Maynards, also Jehovah's Witnesses, objected on religious grounds to the ideological message conveyed on the state license plates.  Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Burger enjoined enforcement against the Maynards of New Hampshire's law prohibiting the obscuring or defacing of license plates.  The law, the Court said, compelled individuals to be "couriers for ideological messages" and "mobile billboards."

In 1980, in Pruneyard Shopping Center vs Robins, the Supreme Court rejected the argument of the owner of a California Shopping Center that a California Supreme Court decision finding a state constitutional right of third persons (in this case, high school students) to pass out political leaflets on the shopping center grounds violated the federal Constitution's First Amendment.  The owner argued, relying on Wooley and Barnette, that his property was being used in such a way as to suggest his endorsement of a political message that he may not have agreed with.  The Court disagreed, concluding under the circumstances of the case that no one was likely to conclude that the shopping center was a sponsor or an endorser of the political message being presented in the shopping center parking lot.

In 2006, in Rumsfield v Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the Supreme Court considered the claim of various law schools that the Solomon Amendment, which withheld federal funds for schools discriminating against military recruiters, violated their First Amendment rights.  The schools argued, among other things, that the law compelled them to support speech (i.e., military recruiting on their premises that was inconsistent with their belief that employers should not discriminate against homosexuals) with which they disagreed.  In a unanimous (8 to 0) decision, the Court rejected the schools' arguments.  Justice Roberts noted that the law doesn't make the schools say anything (and in fact allows them to disassociate themselves from the military recruiters' message by organizing protests or boycotts) and regulates conduct more than it does speech.

The Court extended the compelled speech doctrine in the important 2018 case of Janus v American Federation of State, Local, and Municipal Employees.  In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court overrule a precedent case from 1977 that held that public employee unions could require employees who chose not to join the union to make a financial contribution (less than the normal union dues) to cover the cost of the union representing the employee in collective bargaining.  The fee was said to be justified as a measure designed to keep union peace and avoid the "free-rider" problem of employees getting the benefit of union negotiations without paying for any of the cost.  Writing for the Court in Janus, Justice Alito said that forcing employees to subsidize speech (union positions regarding negotiation and what state fiscal policy with respect to employees should be) is a form of compelled speech.  The Court held that neither of the main justifications for the fees were sufficiently compelling to support the policy.  Unions worried that the effects of Janus will be very harmful to the union movement.

In 2023, the Court, in 303 Creative v Elenis, considered whether the State of Colorado could compel a web designer to design websites for gay marriages, even though such marriages were inconsistent with her own deeply held religious beliefs.  The Court, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, held that the First Amendment's compelled speech doctrine prohibited enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination laws under the facts of the case.  The Court described website designing as clearly expressive speech triggering the need for Colorado to show a compelling state interest for enforcement of its law.  the Court said that the claimed interest in preventing discrimination against a protected class was insufficient, given the many alternative website designers ready and willing to design websites for gay marriages.  The Court also noted that the website designer was not discriminating based on the status of a customer (She claimed happy to serve gay customers, just not willing to use her artistic efforts in support of a ceremony she found immoral). 

Does it violate the compelled speech doctrine if Colorado requires a baker to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple?  Baker Jack Williams says it violates his First Amendment rights because he believes such a wedding is contrary to biblical teaching.  Williams also refuses to make cakes for Halloween or cakes that celebrate atheism or racism.  (In addition to his free speech argument, Williams claims the Colorado law violates his free exercise of religion.)  The Supreme Court will take up Williams's claim in the 2017-2018 term.