Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2015 · Constitutional Law
576 U.S. 200 (2015)
Updated
conlawFirst Amendmentgovernment speechFree Speech Clausespecialty license platesviewpoint discriminationforum analysisstate control
Facts
Texas requires vehicles to display state-issued license plates and offers specialty plates whose designs are approved through statutory processes, including applications from nonprofit entities. SCV applied for a specialty plate bearing the words "SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS" and Confederate battle flag imagery. After public comments and an open meeting, the Board denied the application, explaining that many members of the public found the Confederate flag portion offensive and reasonably associated it with hate. Texas retains authority over specialty plate approval, owns the plate designs, and issues the plates as state identification devices bearing the name "TEXAS."
Issue
Whether Texas violated the Free Speech Clause by rejecting SCV's proposed specialty license plate design featuring a Confederate battle flag. More specifically, the question was whether Texas specialty plate designs are private speech subject to First Amendment forum and viewpoint-discrimination rules, or government speech that the State may control.
Rule
When the government speaks, it may determine the content of its message without triggering the Free Speech Clause's restrictions applicable to private speech. Specialty license plate designs are government speech where history shows the medium has long conveyed state messages, the public closely associates the medium with the State, and the State maintains direct control over the messages by exercising final approval authority over design selection.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Colorado requires every registered car to display a state-issued plate bearing the word "COLORADO" at the top. The state offers specialty plates with graphics and slogans proposed by private groups, but the Motor Vehicle Commission owns all approved designs and must give final approval before any design may be issued. A historical society in Pueblo submits a plate praising a controversial secessionist movement, and the Commission rejects it as inconsistent with the message the State wishes to associate with its plates.
If the society sues under the Free Speech Clause, what is the strongest argument for Colorado?
Explanation. Under the majority opinion, when the government is speaking for itself, it may choose its message without triggering Free Speech Clause limits applicable to private speech. Specialty plate designs count as government speech where the medium has historically conveyed state messages, the public closely associates the medium with the State, and the State effectively controls content through final approval authority. Private proposal of the design does not negate the government's speech.