AUSTIN, Texas — A 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving a proposed Confederate license plate in Texas could influence the high court as it considers whether states can reject personalized license plates based on their messages.
The dispute dates to 2009, when the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans asked the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to approve a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate flag. A state board rejected the design, citing concerns that the symbol could offend members of the public.
The organization sued Texas, arguing that the rejection violated its First Amendment rights. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in 2015 that specialty license plates constituted government speech.
Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said motorists often select specialty plates because they want to display a particular message or cause through a state-issued plate. The ruling allowed Texas to reject the Confederate design.
The decision distinguished specialty plates from personalized vanity plates, which allow motorists to select their own messages.
That distinction is now central to a separate case involving Virginia motorist Curtis Whateley.
In 2023, Whateley obtained a personalized Virginia plate reading “FTP&ATF,” an abbreviation containing an expletive directed at police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles later revoked the plate after receiving an anonymous complaint, saying it was vulgar.
Whateley sued, arguing that the state violated his First Amendment rights. A federal district court sided with Virginia, but a federal appeals court later ruled in Whateley’s favor. Virginia officials have said they plan to ask the Supreme Court to review the case.
The Texas case could become significant if the justices agree to hear Whateley’s appeal because the court would have to determine whether personalized license plates represent government speech or private expression.
The Texas Supreme Court case involved specialty plates that the state offered as limited options. Breyer wrote that motorists could not simply demand that the state create a particular specialty plate.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that specialty plates do not necessarily communicate government endorsement of the messages displayed on them. He pointed to Texas license plates supporting sports teams and other causes as examples.
Texas officials rejected another Confederate license plate proposal from the Sons of Confederate Veterans in 2018.
The Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling therefore left unresolved a broader question surrounding personalized plates: whether the government can regulate messages on plates it issues without violating motorists’ free speech rights.
That question could come before the justices if they agree to take up Whateley’s case.
