WASHINGTON − TheSupreme Courtwon't get involved in states' regulation of vanity license plates, rejecting anappealfrom a Tennessee woman challenging the rejection of her controversial '69PWNDU' personalized plate.
The court on Dec. 8 declined to hear an appeal from Leah Gilliam, who argued that states' rules for what is and isn't allowed on personalized plates are often unclear and can amount to a "dizzying array of censorship."
She wanted the court to find that she is expressing her own views through a vanity plate, not the government's, a decision that would have limited states' ability to control that message.
The justices reached the opposite conclusion in 2015 inupholding restrictions on the design of specialty license platesthat support a cause or organization. States that sell specialty plates can prohibit images such as the Confederate flag, theSupreme Courtruled in a5-4 decision.
"States have long used license plates in this country to convey government messages," Justice Stephen Breyerwrotefor the majority.
Are vanity plates protected speech?One woman is appealing hers to Supreme Court.
But Gilliam's attorneys argued judges have disagreed about whether the same is true for the combination of letters and numbers on personalized license plates.
"And intervention is needed promptly, given that a car owner's First Amendment speech rights change when she moves states," theytold the Supreme Court. "The same personalized plate that appears on cars in Maryland, Oregon, Delaware, Rhode Island, Kentucky, California and Michigan can be prohibited in Tennessee, Indiana and Hawaii."
Tennessee argued there's no reason for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue.
"This Court does not need another license-plate case on government speech," Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmettiwrote in responseto Gilliam's appeal. "One is plenty."
Vanity plate revoked for reference to 'sexual domination'
In Gilliam's case, Tennessee initially approved her request for a personalized license plate that read "69PWNDU." She said the letters referenced "pwnd u," an online gamer phrase meaning to beat an opponent. The numbers, she initially said, reflected part of her phone number and were not a sexual reference. Gilliam later said she's an astronomy buff and "69" refers to the year of the moon landing.
But the state received a complaint 11 years after allowing the plate, and later told her it should be revoked because it referred to sexual domination. Gilliam sued, arguing that Tennessee violated her freedom of speech. She said she's not contesting states' rights to reject profane, sexualized, or vulgar plates as long as there are parameters on what states are allowed to ban.
Tennessee's top court said vanity plates are government speech
Tennessee's top courtsaidthe state's rules are consistent with theU.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision inWalker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.
"Although personalized alphanumeric combinations differ from specialty plate designs in some respects, a faithful application of Walker's reasoning compels the conclusion that they are government speech too," the Tennessee Supreme Courtruled.
Most of Gilliam's arguments, the court said, are really attacks on how the Supreme Court decided the 2015 case.
"Those arguments would be more properly directed to the United States Supreme Court, which is the only court with authority to overrule or abrogate that precedent," the court said.
Tennessee AG said plates are not a big national issue
Tennessee's attorney general argued the issue is far more complicated than Gilliam acknowledges because license plates involve at least some government speech.
"Surely, the part of a license plate (a government ID) that identifies the vehicle – the registration number – qualifies as government speech," Skremetti wrote in urging the high court not to get involved.
The bottom line, he said, is that states' regulation of vanity license plates is not a pressing question of national importance that's worthy of the justices' time.
Free-speech groups backed appeal
But several free-speech groups, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the First Amendment Lawyers Association, had argued that the case has larger implications.
In abriefbacking Gilliam's appeal, those groups said the protections government speech enjoys are "catnip for government officials, who have a strong incentive to push its boundaries because it frees them from any burden under the First Amendment."
"If allowed to stand," the groups said of the Tennessee Supreme Court's rejection of Gilliam's suit, "the decision will cause constitutional injuries reaching beyond the bumpers of vehicles registered in Tennessee."
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Are vanity license plates free speech? Supreme Court skirts issue.