Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Wooley v. Maynard

Supreme Court of the United States · 1977 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCompelled SpeechFederal CourtsSection 1983Injunctive Reliefcompelled speechright not to speak

Facts

New Hampshire required noncommercial vehicle license plates to bear the state motto, "Live Free or Die," and made it a misdemeanor knowingly to obscure letters on a number plate; the state court had interpreted "letters" to include the motto. George and Maxine Maynard, Jehovah's Witnesses, considered the motto repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs and covered it on their license plates. George Maynard was prosecuted three times within five weeks, convicted each time, fined, and served 15 days in jail after refusing to pay the fines on grounds of conscience. The Maynards then sought only prospective relief to prevent future prosecutions for covering the motto.

Issue

May New Hampshire, consistent with the First Amendment, criminally punish individuals who cover the state motto "Live Free or Die" on their vehicle license plates because they object to being forced to display that ideological message? Also, was federal injunctive relief barred by Younger principles in these circumstances?

Rule

The First Amendment's protection of freedom of thought includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. A state may not constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public, unless the state's countervailing interest is sufficiently compelling and cannot be achieved by less drastic means. Federal injunctive relief against future state prosecutions is permissible where the suit is wholly prospective and repeated prosecutions create exceptional circumstances showing that an injunction is necessary to afford adequate protection of constitutional rights.

🔒

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.

Oregon requires every private residence that receives municipal trash service to display a city-issued placard in a front window reading "Honor Community First," with a serial number printed beneath the slogan. Lena Ortiz of Portland objects to the slogan on moral and political grounds and covers only the words while leaving the serial number visible from the street.

If Lena seeks to block future fines, which is the strongest First Amendment argument?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the First Amendment protects both the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking. Government may not require an individual to display an ideological message on private property for public viewing unless the state's countervailing interest is sufficiently compelling and cannot be achieved by less drastic means. Here, forcing Lena to display "Honor Community First" in her window closely fits compelled dissemination of ideology, and the city's identification function appears satisfied by the visible serial number without requiring the slogan.