Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 2015 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFree SpeechGovernment Speechgovernment speechspecialty license platesfree speech clauseforum analysis

Facts

Texas requires motor vehicles to display state-issued license plates and offers specialty plates whose designs must be approved by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board. SCV, a nonprofit entity, applied to sponsor a specialty plate featuring its name and Confederate battle flag imagery. After inviting public comment and considering opposition, the Board unanimously denied the application because many members of the public reasonably found the Confederate flag design offensive and associated it with hateful expressions. SCV then challenged the denial as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

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 license plate designs are private speech subject to First Amendment forum and viewpoint-discrimination rules, or government speech that Texas may control.

Rule

When the government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says. In deciding whether expression constitutes government speech, relevant considerations include the history of the medium as used by government to communicate messages, whether observers reasonably associate the message with the government, and the degree of governmental control over the message's selection and presentation.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Colorado requires every car registered in Denver to display a state-issued plate bearing the word "Colorado" at the top. The state transportation board offers optional specialty plate designs, retains ownership of all designs, and must give final approval before any design is issued. It rejects a proposed plate from Prairie Heritage Alliance because the board does not want that message on state plates.

If Prairie Heritage Alliance sues under the Free Speech Clause, which is the strongest argument for Colorado?

Explanation. When the government speaks, it may choose the content of its own message. The majority identified three especially important considerations: the history of the medium as a vehicle for government expression, whether observers reasonably associate the message with the government, and whether the government exercises effective control and final approval. A state-issued specialty plate program with those features is government speech, so forum analysis does not apply. (Derived from Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (2015).)