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.