Walker v. Tex. Div.,
Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.
576 U.S. ___ (2015)
Justice Breyer delivered the
opinion of the Court.
Texas offers automobile owners a
choice between ordinary and specialty license plates.
Those who want the State to issue a particular
specialty plate may propose a plate design, comprising
a slogan, a graphic, or (most commonly) both. If the
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board approves the
design, the State will make it available for display
on vehicles registered in Texas.
In this case, the Texas Division of
the Sons of Confederate Veterans proposed a specialty
license plate design featuring a Confederate battle
flag. The Board rejected the proposal. We must decide
whether that rejection violated the Constitution’s
free speech guarantees. We conclude that it did not.
Texas law requires all motor vehicles operating on the
State’s roads to display valid license plates. And Texas
makes available several kinds of plates. Drivers may
choose to display the State’s general-issue license
plates. Each of these plates contains the word “Texas,”
a license plate number, a silhouette of the State, a
graphic of the Lone Star, and the slogan“The Lone Star
State.” In the alternative, drivers may choose from an
assortment of specialty license plates. Each of these
plates contains the word “Texas,” a license plate
number, and one of a selection of designs prepared by
the State. Finally, Texas law provides for personalized
plates (also known as vanity plates). Pursuant to the
personalization program, a vehicle owner may request a
particular alphanumeric pattern for use as a plate
number, such as “BOB” or “TEXPL8.”
Here we are concerned only with the
second category of plates, namely specialty license
plates, not with the personalization program. Texas
offers vehicle owners a variety of specialty plates,
generally for an annual fee. And Texas selects the
designs for specialty plates through three distinct
processes.
First, the state legislature may
specifically call for the development of a specialty
license plate. The legislature has enacted statutes
authorizing, for example, plates that say “Keep Texas
Beautiful” and “Mothers Against Drunk Driving,” plates
that “honor” the Texas citrus industry, and plates
that feature an image of the World Trade Center towers
and the words “Fight Terrorism.”
Second, the Board may approve a
specialty plate design proposal that a
state-designated private vendor has created at the
request of an individual or organization. Among the
plates created through the private-vendor process are
plates promoting the “Keller Indians” and plates with
the slogan “Get it Sold with RE/MAX.”
Third, the Board “may create new
specialty license plates on its own initiative or on
receipt of an application from a” nonprofit entity
seeking to sponsor a specialty plate. A nonprofit must
include in its application “a draft design of the
specialty license plate.” And Texas law vests in
the Board authority to approve or to disapprove an
application. The relevant statute says that the Board
“may refuse to create a new specialty license plate”
for a number of reasons, for example “if the design
might be offensive to any member of the public
. . . or for any other reason established by
rule.” Specialty plates that the Board has sanctioned
through this process include plates featuring the
words “The Gator Nation,” together with the Florida
Gators logo, and plates featuring the logo of Rotary
International and the words “SERVICE ABOVE SELF.”
In 2009, the Sons of Confederate
Veterans, Texas Division (a nonprofit entity), applied
to sponsor a specialty license plate through this
last-mentioned process. SCV’s application included a
draft plate design. At the bottom of the proposed
plate were the words “SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS.”
At the side was the organization’s logo, a square
Confederate battle flag framed by the words “Sons of
Confederate Veterans 1896.” A faint Confederate battle
flag appeared in the background on the lower portion
of the plate. Additionally,in the middle of the plate
was the license plate number, and at the top was the
State’s name and silhouette. The Board’s predecessor
denied this application.
In 2010, SCV renewed its application
before the Board. The Board invited public comment on
its website and at an open meeting. After considering
the responses, including a number of letters sent by
elected officials who opposed the proposal, the Board
voted unanimously against issuing the plate. The Board
explained that it had found “it necessary to deny the
plate design application, specifically the confederate
flag portion of the design, because public comments
had shown that many members of the general public find
the design offensive, and because such comments are
reasonable.” The Board added “that a significant
portion of the public associate the confederate flag
with organizations advocating expressions of hate
directed toward people or groups that is demeaning to
those people or groups.”
In 2012, SCV and two of its officers
(collectively SCV) brought this lawsuit against the
chairman and members of the Board (collectively
Board). SCV argued that the Board’s decision violated
the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, and it
sought an injunction requiring the Board to approve
the proposed plate design. The District Court entered
judgment for the Board. A divided panel of the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. It held
that Texas’s specialty license plate designs are
private speech and that the Board, in refusing to
approve SCV’s design, engaged in constitutionally
forbidden viewpoint discrimination. The dissenting
judge argued that Texas’s specialty license plate
designs are government speech, the content of which
the State is free to control.
We granted the Board’s petition for
certiorari, and we now reverse.
II
When government speaks, it is not
barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the
content of what it says. Pleasant Grove City
v. Summum,
555 U. S. 460
–468 (2009). That freedom in part reflects the fact
that it is the democratic electoral process that first
and foremost provides a check on government speech.
Thus, government statements (and government actions
and programs that take the form of speech) do not
normally trigger the First Amendment rules designed to
protect the marketplace of ideas. Instead, the Free
Speech Clause helps produce informed opinions among
members of the public, who are then able to influence
the choices of a government that, through words and
deeds, will reflect its electoral mandate.
Were the Free Speech Clause
interpreted otherwise, government would not work. 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? “It is not easy to imagine how
government could function if it lacked the freedom” to
select the messages it wishes to convey.
We have therefore refused “to hold
that the Government unconstitutionally discriminates
on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a
program dedicated to advance certain permissible
goals, because the program in advancing those goals
necessarily discourages alternative goals.” Rust v.
Sullivan,
500 U. S. 173,
194 (1991)
. We have pointed out that a contrary holding “would
render numerous Government programs constitutionally
suspect.” And we have made clear that “the government
can speak for itself.”
That is not to say that a
government’s ability to express itself is without
restriction. 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.
III
In our view, specialty license
plates issued pursuant to Texas’s statutory scheme
convey government speech. Our reasoning rests
primarily on our analysis in Summum, a recent case
that presented a similar problem. We conclude here, as
we did there, that our precedents regarding government
speech (and not our precedents regarding forums for
private speech) provide the appropriate framework
through which to approach the case...
Our analysis in Summum leads us to the conclusion that
here, too, government speech is at issue. First, the
history of license plates shows that, insofar as license
plates have conveyed more than state names and vehicle
identification numbers, they long have communicated
messages from the States. In 1917, Arizona became the
first State to display a graphic on its plates. The
State presented a depiction of the head of a Hereford
steer. In the years since, New Hampshire plates have
featured the profile of the “Old Man of the Mountain,”
Massachusetts plates have included a representation of
the Commonwealth’s famous codfish, and Wyoming plates
have displayed a rider atop a bucking bronco.
In 1928, Idaho became the first State
to include a slogan on its plates. The 1928 Idaho
plate proclaimed “Idaho Potatoes” and featured an
illustration of a brown potato, onto which the license
plate number was superimposed in green. The brown
potato did not catch on, but slogans on license plates
did. Over the years, state plates have included the
phrases “North to the Future” (Alaska), “Keep Florida
Green” (Florida), “Hoosier Hospitality” (Indiana),
“The Iodine Products State” (South Carolina), “Green
Mountains” (Vermont), and “America’s Dairyland”
(Wisconsin). States have used license plate slogans to
urge action, to promote tourism, and to tout local
industries.
Texas, too, has selected various
messages to communicate through its license plate
designs. By 1919, Texas had begun to display the Lone
Star emblem on its plates. In 1936, the State’s
general-issue plates featured the first slogan on
Texas license plates: the word “Centennial.”In 1968,
Texas plates promoted a San Antonio event by including
the phrase “Hemisfair 68.” In 1977, Texas replaced the
Lone Star with a small silhouette of the State. And in
1995, Texas plates celebrated “150 Years of
Statehood.” Additionally, the Texas Legislature has
specifically authorized specialty plate designs
stating, among other things, “Read to Succeed,”
“Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo,” “Texans Conquer
Cancer,” and “Girl Scouts.” This kind of state speech
has appeared on Texas plates for decades.
Second, Texas license plate designs
“are often closely identified in the public mind with
the State.” Each Texas license plate is a government
article serving the governmental purposes of vehicle
registration and identification. The governmental
nature of the plates is clear from their faces: The
State places the name “TEXAS” in large letters at the
top of every plate. Moreover, the State requires Texas
vehicle owners to display license plates, and every
Texas license plate is issued by the State. Texas also
owns the designs on its license plates, including the
designs that Texas adopts on the basis of proposals
made by private individuals and organizations.
Texas license plates are,
essentially, government IDs. And issuers of ID
“typically do not permit” the placement on their IDs
of “messages with which they do not wish to be
associated.” Consequently, “persons who observe”
designs on IDs “routinely—and reasonably—interpret
them as conveying some message on the [issuer’s]
behalf.” Ibid.
Indeed, a person who displays a
message on a Texas license plate likely intends to
convey to the public that the State has endorsed that
message. If not, the individual could simply display
the message in question in larger letters on a bumper
sticker right next to the plate. But the individual
prefers a license plate design to the purely private
speech expressed through bumper stickers. That may
well be because Texas’s license plate designs convey
government agreement with the message displayed.
Third, Texas maintains direct control
over the messages conveyed on its specialty plates.
Texas law provides that the State “has sole control
over the design, typeface, color, and alphanumeric
pattern for all license plates.” The Board must
approve every specialty plate design proposal before
the design can appear on a Texas plate. And the Board
and its predecessor have actively exercised this
authority. Texas asserts, and SCV concedes, that the
State has rejected at least a dozen proposed designs.
Accordingly, like the city government in Summum, Texas
“has ‘effectively controlled’ the messages [conveyed]
by exercising ‘final approval authority’ over their
selection.”
This final approval authority allows
Texas to choose how to present itself and its
constituency. Thus, Texas offers plates celebrating
the many educational institutions attended by its
citizens. But it need not issue plates deriding
schooling. Texas offers plates that pay tribute to the
Texas citrus industry. But it need not issue plates
praising Florida’s oranges as far better. And Texas
offers plates that say “Fight Terrorism.” But it need
not issue plates promoting al Qaeda.
These considerations, taken together,
convince us that the specialty plates here in question
are similar enough to the monuments in Summum to call
for the same result. That is not to say that every
element of our discussion in Summum is relevant here.
For instance, in Summum we emphasized that monuments
were “permanent” and we observed that “public parks
can accommodate only a limited number of permanent
monuments.” We believed that the speech at issue was
government speech rather than private speech in part
because we found it “hard to imagine how a public park
could be opened up for the installation of permanent
monuments by every person or group wishing to engage
in that form of expression.” Here, a State could
theoretically offer a much larger number of license
plate designs, and those designs need not be available
for time immemorial.
But those characteristics of the
speech at issue in Summum were particularly important
because the government speech at issue occurred in
public parks, which are traditional public forums for
“the delivery of speeches and the holding of marches
and demonstrations” by private citizens. By contrast,
license plates are not traditional public forums for
private speech.
And other features of the designs on
Texas’s specialty license plates indicate that the
message conveyed by those designs is conveyed on
behalf of the government. Texas, through its Board,
selects each design featured on the State’s specialty
license plates. Texas presents these designs on
government-mandated, government-controlled, and
government-issued IDs that have traditionally been
used as a medium for government speech. And it places
the designs directly below the large letters
identifying “TEXAS” as the issuer of the IDs. “The
[designs] that are accepted, therefore, are meant to
convey and have the effect of conveying a government
message, and they thus constitute government speech.”
SCV believes that Texas’s specialty
license plate designs are not government speech, at
least with respect to the designs (comprising slogans
and graphics) that were initially proposed by private
parties. According to SCV, the State does not engage
in expressive activity through such slogans and
graphics, but rather provides a forum for private
speech by making license plates available to display
the private parties’ designs. We cannot agree.
We have previously used what we have
called “forum analysis” to evaluate government
restrictions on purely private speech that occurs on
government property. But forum analysis is misplaced
here. Because the State is speaking on its own behalf,
the First Amendment strictures that attend the various
types of government-established forums do not
apply....
IV
Our determination that Texas’s
specialty license plate designs are government speech
does not mean that the designs do not also implicate
the free speech rights of private persons. We have
acknowledged that drivers who display a State’s
selected license plate designs convey the messages
communicated through those designs. See Wooley v.
Maynard,
430 U. S. 705
, n. 15, 715 (1977). And we have recognized that
the First Amendment stringently limits a State’s
authority to compel a private party to express a view
with which the private party disagrees. But here,
compelled private speech is not at issue. And just as
Texas cannot require SCV to convey “the State’s
ideological message,” SCV cannot force Texas to
include a Confederate battle flag on its specialty
license plates.
Justice Alito, with whom The
Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy
join, dissenting.
The Court’s decision passes off
private speech as government speech and, in doing so,
establishes a precedent that threatens private speech
that government finds displeasing....
Unfortunately, the Court’s decision
categorizes private speech as government speech and
thus strips it of all First Amendment protection. The
Court holds that all the privately created messages on
the many specialty plates issued by the State of Texas
convey a government message rather than the message of
the motorist displaying the plate. Can this possibly
be correct?
Here is a test. Suppose you sat by
the side of a Texas highway and studied the license
plates on the vehicles passing by. You would see, in
addition to the standard Texas plates, an impressive
array of specialty plates. (There are now more than
350 varieties.) You would likely observe plates that
honor numerous colleges and universities. You might
see plates bearing the name of a high school, a
fraternity or sorority, the Masons, the Knights of
Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, a
realty company, a favorite soft drink, a favorite
burger restaurant, and a favorite NASCAR driver.
As you sat there watching these
plates speed by, would you really think that the
sentiments reflected in these specialty plates are the
views of the State of Texas and not those of the
owners of the cars? 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?” If you did
your viewing at the start of the college football
season and you saw Texas plates with the names of the
University of Texas’s out-of-state competitors in
upcoming games—Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, the
University of Oklahoma, Kansas State, Iowa State—would
you assume that the State of Texas was officially (and
perhaps treasonously) rooting for the Longhorns’
opponents? And when a car zipped by with a plate that
reads “NASCAR – 24 Jeff Gordon,” would you think that
Gordon (born in California, raised in Indiana, resides
in North Carolina) is the official favorite of the
State government?
The Court says that all of these
messages are government speech. It is essential that
government be able to express its own viewpoint, the
Court reminds us, because otherwise, how would it
promote its programs, like recycling and vaccinations?
So when Texas issues a “Rather Be Golfing” plate, but
not a “Rather Be Playing Tennis” or “Rather Be
Bowling” plate, it is furthering a state policy to
promote golf but not tennis or bowling. And when Texas
allows motorists to obtain a Notre Dame license plate
but not a University of Southern California plate, it
is taking sides in that long-time rivalry.
This capacious understanding of
government speech takes a large and painful bite out
of the First Amendment. Specialty plates may seem
innocuous. They make motorists happy, and they put
money in a State’s coffers. But the precedent this
case sets is dangerous. While all license plates
unquestionably contain some government speech
(e.g., the name of the State and the numbers
and/or letters identifying the vehicle), the State of
Texas has converted the remaining space on its
specialty plates into little mobile billboards on
which motorists can display their own messages. And
what Texas did here was to reject one of the messages
that members of a private group wanted to post on some
of these little billboards because the State thought
that many of its citizens would find the message
offensive. That is blatant viewpoint discrimination.
If the State can do this with its
little mobile billboards, could it do the same with
big, stationary billboards? Suppose that a State
erected electronic billboards along its highways.
Suppose that the State posted some government messages
on these billboards and then, to raise money, allowed
private entities and individuals to purchase the right
to post their own messages. And suppose that the State
allowed only those messages that it liked or found not
too controversial. Would that be constitutional?
What if a state college or university
did the same thing with a similar billboard or a
campus bulletin board or dorm list serve? What if it
allowed private messages that are consistent with
prevailing views on campus but banned those that
disturbed some students or faculty? Can there be any
doubt that these examples of viewpoint discrimination
would violate the First Amendment? I hope not, but the
future uses of today’s precedent remain to be seen...
II
Relying almost entirely on one
precedent—Pleasant Grove City v. Summum—the Court
holds that messages that private groups succeed in
placing on Texas license plates are government
messages. The Court badly misunderstands Summum.
In Summum, a private group claimed
the right to erect a large stone monument in a small
city park. Id., at 464. The 2.5-acre park contained 15
permanent displays, 11 of which had been donated by
private parties. Ibid. The central question concerned
the nature of the municipal government’s conduct when
it accepted privately donated monuments for placement
in its park: Had the city created a forum for private
speech, or had it accepted donated monuments that
expressed a government message? We held that the
monuments represented government speech, and we
identified several important factors that led to this
conclusion.
First, governments have long used
monuments as a means of expressing a government
message. As we put it, “since ancient times, kings,
emperors, and other rulers have erected statues of
themselves to remind their subjects of their authority
and power.” Here in the United States, important
public monuments like the Statue of Liberty, the
Washington Monument, and the Lincoln Memorial, express
principles that inspire and bind the Nation together.
Thus, long experience has led the public to associate
public monuments with government speech.
Second, there is no history of
landowners allowing their property to be used by third
parties as the site of large permanent monuments that
do not express messages that the landowners wish to
convey. We were not presented in Summum with any
examples of public parks that had been thrown open for
private groups or individuals to put up whatever
monuments they desired.
Third, spatial limitations played a
prominent part in our analysis. Public parks can
accommodate only a limited number of permanent
monuments,” and consequently permanent monuments
“monopolize the use of the land on which they stand
and interfere permanently with other uses of public
space.” Ibid. Because only a limited number of
monuments can be built in any given space, governments
do not allow their parks to be cluttered with
monuments that do not serve a government purpose, a
point well understood by those who visit parks and
view the monuments they contain.
These characteristics, which rendered
public monuments government speech in Summum, are not
present in Texas’s specialty plate program.
I begin with history. As we said in
Summum, governments have used monuments since time
immemorial to express important government messages,
and there is no history of governments giving equal
space to those wishing to express dissenting views....
Governments have always used public monuments to
express a government message, and members of the
public understand this.
The history of messages on license
plates is quite different. After the beginning of
motor vehicle registration in 1917, more than 70 years
passed before the proliferation of specialty plates in
Texas. It was not until the 1990’s that motorists were
allowed to choose from among 10 messages, such as
“Read to Succeed” and “Keep Texas Beautiful.”
Up to this point, the words on the
Texas plates can be considered government speech. The
messages were created by the State, and they plausibly
promoted state programs. But when, at some point
within the last 20 years or so, the State began to
allow private entities to secure plates conveying
their own messages, Texas crossed the line.
The contrast between the history of
public monuments, which have been used to convey
government messages for centuries, and the Texas
license plate program could not be starker....
The Texas specialty plate program also does not exhibit
the “selective receptivity” present in
Summum.
To the contrary, Texas’s program is
not selective
by design. The Board’s chairman, who is charged with
approving designs, explained that the program’s purpose
is “to encourage private plates” in order to “generate
additional revenue for the state.” And most of the time,
the Board “base[s] [its] decisions on rules that
primarily deal with reflectivity and readability.” A
Department brochure explains: “Q. Who provides the plate
design? A. You do, though your design is subject to
reflectivity, legibility, and design standards.”
Pressed to come up with any evidence
that the State has exercised “selective receptivity,”
Texas (and the Court) rely primarily on sketchy
information not contained in the record, specifically
that the Board’s predecessor (might have) rejected a
“pro-life” plate and perhaps others on the ground that
they contained messages that were offensive. But even
if this happened, it shows only that the present case
may not be the only one in which the State has
exercised viewpoint discrimination....
A final factor that was important
in Summum was space. A park can accommodate only so
many permanent monuments. Often large and made of
stone, monuments can last for centuries and are
difficult to move. License plates, on the other hand,
are small, light, mobile, and designed to last for
only a relatively brief time. The only absolute limit
on the number of specialty plates that a State could
issue is the number of registered vehicles. The
variety of available plates is limitless, too. Today
Texas offers more than 350 varieties. In 10 years,
might it be 3,500?
In sum, the Texas specialty plate
program has noneof the factors that were critical in
Summum, and the Texas program exhibits a very
important characteristic that was missing in that
case: Individuals who want to display a Texas
specialty plate, instead of the standardplate, must
pay an increased annual registration fee. How many
groups or individuals would clamor to pay $8,000 (the
cost of the deposit required to create a new plate) in
order to broadcast the government’s message as opposed
to their own? And if Texas really wants to speak out
in support of, say, Iowa State University (but not the
University of Iowa) or “Young Lawyers” (but not old
ones), why must it be paid to say things that it
really wants to say? The fees Texas collects pay for
much more than merely the administration of the
program.
States have not adopted specialty
license plate programs like Texas’s because they are
now bursting with things they want to say on their
license plates. Those programs were adopted because
they bring in money. Texas makes public the revenue
totals generated by its specialty plate program, and
it is apparent that the programbrings in many millions
of dollars every year.
Texas has space available on millions
of little mobile billboards. And Texas, in effect,
sells that space to those who wish to use it to
express a personal message—provided only that the
message does not express a viewpoint that the State
finds unacceptable. That is not government speech; it
is the regulation of private speech....
Messages that are proposed by
private parties and placed on Texas specialty plates
are private speech, not government speech. Texas
cannot forbid private speech based on its viewpoint.
That is what it did here. Because the Court approves
this violation of the First Amendment, I respectfully
dissent.