Nashville, TN – A contentious issue regarding vanity license plates and First Amendment rights is once again before the United States Supreme Court. Leah Gilliam, a Tennessee woman, is challenging the state’s authority to censor personalized license plates, arguing that they represent personal speech, not government speech.
Ms. Gilliam’s case centers on her custom plate, “69PWNDU”, which has been displayed on her vehicle for over 11 years. She explains that “PWND” relates to the gaming community term for defeating an opponent, and “69” marks the historic year of the moon landing. However, Tennessee revoked her vanity plate after a state official was informed of its content.
Understanding the Core of the Dispute
The controversy began when the Tennessee Department of Revenue chief of staff, Justin Moorhead, received a notification about Gilliam’s plate in 2021. Under state law, vanity plates that are deemed misleading or “offensive to good taste and decency” can be rejected or withdrawn by state authorities.
Ms. Gilliam asserts this violates the First Amendment by discriminating against her personal viewpoint. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled against her, claiming that vanity plates are perceived by the public as government speech, not individual expression.
“When a car owner pays a special fee to create and express her ‘own unique message,’ the public reasonably perceives that expression as the car owner’s, not the government’s,” states Gilliam’s petition to the Supreme Court.
Historical Precedent and Its Implications
This legal battle echoes a 2015 Supreme Court ruling concerning vanity plates in Texas, specifically regarding the Sons of Confederate Veterans and their attempt to display the Confederate flag on custom plates. In a 5-4 decision, the Court sided with the state, emphasizing that license plates are government speech and states can regulate their content without infringing on free speech rights.
Gilliam’s attorneys argue that this 2015 decision has created an inconsistent patchwork of censorship nationwide, where some individuals receive approval for certain phrases and others do not, despite similar contexts.
Diverse State Policies Highlighting Discrepancies
The controversy is further complicated by varied state standards on vanity plates:
- Arizona has allowed “JESUSNM” but rejected variations like “JESUSRX” and “NOGOD.”
- Vermont prohibited “JN36TN,” referencing John 3:16 from the Bible.
- Ohio banned “LET’S GO B,” associated with the politically charged “Let’s Go Brandon” chant.
- Texas prohibited “JAIL 45,” a politically sensitive phrase.
Looking Ahead: Supreme Court Review and Potential Impact
The case, Leah Gilliam v. David Gerregano, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue, awaits the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the matter in the 2025-2026 term. According to legal procedures, at least four justices must vote in favor to grant oral arguments.
A spokesperson from Tennessee’s attorney general’s office has not commented on the matter as the state has waived its right to respond to the petition.
Legal experts and civil liberties advocates are closely watching this case because of its potential to clarify the boundaries between government regulation and individual free speech as it pertains to customized license plates. For more detailed background, see the original report here.
Why This Matters to Drivers and Free Speech Advocates
- This case will influence how states regulate personalized license plates moving forward.
- A ruling in favor of Ms. Gilliam could limit government control over personal speech expressed through vanity plates.
- Conversely, upholding the current standard may allow states broader discretion to reject plates based on subjective standards of decency.