Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans
§1.1 Title and citation of the case
§1.1 Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 1 (2015)
§1.2 The problem in the case
§1.2 The plaintiff, the Texas Division of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, claims that the defendant, John Walker III (a chairman for the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board) violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by rejecting their proposed specialty license plate design featuring a Confederate battle flag.
§1.3 The facts of the case
§1.3 The defendant requires that all motor vehicles operating on Texas roads display valid license plates, and all automobile owners are offered a choice between general-issue and specialty license plates. There are three distinct processes that Texas selects the designs for specialty plates, for this case we are only concerned with the third process. With the third process, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (DMV) may create new specialty license plates on its own initiative or through an application from a nonprofit entity seeking to sponsor a specialty plate. If these plates are approved by the Texas DMV Board, then the Texas DMV Board would begin offering these specialty license plates to Texas drivers. In 2009, the Texas Division of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans (SCV), designed a license plate that had a depiction of the confederate flag, which was rejected by the Texas DMV Board. In 2010, SCV renewed its application for the specialty license plate before the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board. The Texas DMV Board unanimously voted against issuing the license plate designed by the Texas Division of SCV because its feature of a Confederate battle flag received public criticism as being offensive and being associated with organizations advocating expressions of hate. In 2012, the plaintiff filed suit against the Chairman, John Walker III, and the members of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, arguing that the Board’s rejection of the specialty plate design featuring a Confederate battle flag violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.
§1.4 What laws and precedents are applicable.
§1.4.1 Texas Transportation Code Ann. § 504.801 (a) - (c).
§1.4.1.1 The Texas Transportation Code Ann. § 504.801 (a) - (c) discusses the creation of new specialty license plates by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.
§1.4.2 Texas Administrative Code §217.45 (i) (7)
§1.4.2.1 The Texas Administrative Code §217.45 (i) (7) discusses the rules on how speciality license plates are approved by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.
§1.4.3 Pleasant Grove City v Summum, 55 U.S. 460, 467-468 (2009)
§1.4.3.1 The Pleasant Grove City v Summum, 55 U.S. 460, 467-468 (2009) case is a similar Supreme Court case about a monument being put up in a public park in Utah. This case is discussed several times in the opinion of the court.
§1.4.4 Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., v. Vandergriff, 759 F. 3d 388 (2014).
§1.4.4.1 The Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., v. Vandergriff, 759 F. 3d 388 (2014) is when the case was entered into the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the District Court’s ruling was reversed.
§1.4.5 First Amendment (Free Speech Clause)
§1.4.5.1 The Free Speech Clause is included in the First Amendment. This clause in the amendment states that Congress shall pass no law that infringes upon the freedom of speech.
§1.5 The main argument (the big syllogism) includes any necessary groundings.
§1.5 All license plates, including general-issue and specialty license plates, are owned and issued by the State of Texas. All license plates in the State of Texas also bear the state’s names and are used as a form of government ID. The State of Texas also explicitly associates itself with the speech on all of its license plates.
§1.5.1 Due to the State of Texas explicitly associating itself with the speech on all of its issued license plates, then all license plates in the State of Texas (particularly specialty license plates) are considered as government speech and not as private speech.
§1.5.2 Since all license plates in the State of Texas are considered as government speech and not as private speech, specialty license plates are not protected under the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment. Thus, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board was entitled to refuse to issue the specialty license plate designed by the Texas Division of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, and the Texas Division of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans cannot force the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board to include a Confederate battle flag on its specialty license plates.
§1.6 The opinion of the court.
§1.6. Opinion of the Court
§1.6.1 The Court holds that the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board was justified in their rejection of the specialty license plate that was designed and proposed by the Texas Division of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans. In the Court’s opinion, this rejection did not violate the
First Amendment because speciality license plates issued by the State of Texas are considered government speech, not private speech, and are thus not protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. Furthermore, it was also explicitly discussed that the State of Texas never intended for the specialty license plates to be a designated public forum because the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board always exercises the final authority over each specialty license plate design (See §1.4.1 and §1.4.2).
§1.7 Your analysis.
§1.7 I think it was a smart strategic move to incorporate the use of the Texas Transportation Code Ann. § 504.801 (a) - (c), the Texas Administrative Code §217.45 (i) (7), and the Pleasant Grove City v Summum, 55 U.S. 460, 467-468 (2009).
§1.7.1 The Texas Transportation Code Ann. § 504.801 (a) - (c).
§1.7.1.1 The Texas Transportation Code Ann. § 504.801 (a) - (c) clearly states the rules on how the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board may create new specialty license plates. According to this code, “Any nonprofit entity (which is the Sons of the Confederate Veterans in this case) may submit an application to the department to sponsor a new specialty license plate.” It is very important to include this in the case, so that everyone can specifically read the rules on how specialty license plates can be created, which is further expanded upon in §1.7.2 The Texas Administrative Code §217.45 (i) (7).
§1.7.2 The Texas Administrative Code §217.45 (i) (7).
§1.7.2.1 The Texas Administrative Code §217.45 (i) (7) clearly states the rules on how the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board may approve new specialty license plates. According to this code, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board reviews each proposed license plate and opens them up to public comment before approval. After which, the board is free to accept or reject any proposed license plate that they want. However, the submitter may be allowed to submit their design if the applicant has additional, required documentation or the design has been altered to an acceptable degree. This is important to note to the court because the plaintiff’s original design was rejected, and they resubmitted the design (with no alterations made) and it was rejected again before the plaintiff filed suit. It is pointed out to the court the specific rules that are put in place and made known to all applicants.
§1.7.3 The Pleasant Grove City v Summum, 55 U.S. 460, 467-468 (2009).
§1.7.3.1 The Sons of the Confederate Veterans filed suit against the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board for violating the Free Speech clause in the First Amendment by rejecting their specialty license plate design. However, by using the Pleasant Grove City v Summum, 55 U.S. 460, 467-468 (2009) case to establish that specialty license plates are government speech and not private speech, and are thus not protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Sons of the Confederate Veterans no longer had any legal reason to file suit.
§1.7.4 Overall, I think that it was very smart the way that the Court’s opinion was laid out, as mentioned above. First, they established the specific rules of creating a specialty license plate in Texas. Then, they established the specific rules for how the defendant approved and rejected the proposed specialty license plates in Texas. Then, they moved on to providing a precedent for the case through a previous Supreme Court Case, The Pleasant Grove City v Summum, 55 U.S. 460, 467-468 (2009). Through that case, the established that the State of Texas had no intention of their license plates ever being used as private speech. This is made evident through various reasons such as the following: the State of Texas owns and issues every license plate in Texas; Every Texas license plate bears the State’s name; Texas license plates are used as a form of government ID; the State of Texas explicitly associates itself with the speech on its license plates; the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board is explicitly involved in selecting with proposed plates are approved or rejected based on public commentary from the People of Texas (further insinuating that the license plates are a form of government speech rather than private speech since only a select few are approved by the board instead of all proposed plates being approved). By using all of this evidence in this specific order, each point strengthened the previous point and made it clear why the court ruled that the specialty license plates were government speech rather than private speech, and thus, they were not protected under the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.
Comentarios