A federal appeals court has ruled that New York can ban pro-life license plates as “patently offensive” messages that might drive someone to “road rage.”
The long-standing case dates back to 2002, when the pro-life Children First Foundation attempted to participate in a now-defunct license plate program for non-profits, where they could submit their designs and share in part of the profits from any purchased.
The DMV rejected their “Choose Life” plates, pictured above, citing their right to exclude anything “patently offensive,” lest it incur road rage and endanger the public.
Meanwhile, the DMV has accepted other controversial and political plates—like a blood-spattered “Support Police” plate, or a plate urging “Union Yes.”
Despite this, in a 2-1 decision, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the DMV’s method of deciding what is and is not “politically sensitive” is “reasonable and viewpoint neutral, which is all that the First Amendment requires.” As Reuters reports, they voted in favor of granting them “broad discretion” in the matter.
The majority maintained that approving other political plates, like the union plate, “does not indicate inconsistent application of the DMV’s policy.”
In the ruling, they call license plates a “nonpublic forum,” involving “private speech” not protected by the First Amendment.
“[Drivers] may display a ‘Choose Life’ bumper sticker — or even cover every available square inch of their vehicle with such stickers,” wrote Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler. “That message will resonate just as loudly as if vehicle displayed a ‘Choose Life’ license plate. It will merely do so without the perception of State endorsement.”
From the dissenting opinion:
…To be clear, this is not to suggest that limits cannot be placed on the content of custom license plates, as our decision in Perry makes clear. But the Commissioner may not pick and choose what custom plates to permit, based solely on his subjective judgment regarding the degree to which any given political, religious, or social issue is “inflammatory” at any given time.
There has already been extensive back-and-forth on this case, and CFF is likely to seek more time in court.
