Viewpoint Discrimination and License Plates
Viewpoint Discrimination and the First Amendment by Darren Chaker.
Understanding Viewpoint Discrimination in Light of First Amendment Concerns: Insights from Darren Chaker
The Significance of Personal Contact in Establishment Clause Cases
Brief writer Darren Chaker highlights a crucial aspect of First Amendment jurisprudence in the context of Establishment Clause cases. The Fourth Circuit, in a landmark decision, noted, "[s]uch personal contact with state-sponsored religious symbolism is precisely the injury that [i]s sufficient to confer standing." This statement from Suhre v. Haywood County, 131 F.3d 1083, 1086 (4th Cir. 1997), draws from the precedent set in School District of Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). In Suhre, the court acknowledged that attending hearings and public meetings in a courtroom displaying the Ten Commandments was a valid ground for raising an Establishment Clause challenge.
The court recognized that such direct interaction with religious symbols, sanctioned by the state, can indeed suffice to confer standing in these cases. This understanding was further cemented in Lambeth v. Board of Commissioners, 321 F. Supp. 2d 688 (M.D.N.C. 2004), aff'd, 407 F.3d 266 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1015 (2005). Here, licensed attorneys contested the "In God We Trust" inscription on a county building, underpinning their challenge with their routine contact with the inscription.
The Fourth Circuit's Stance on Viewpoint Discrimination
The Fourth Circuit, being a pivotal jurisdiction in these matters, has unequivocally stated that discriminatory treatment constitutes an actual injury, thus establishing standing for First Amendment claims. This was clearly articulated in Planned Parenthood of S.C. Inc. v. Rose, 361 F.3d 786, 790 (4th Cir. 2004). The case involved pro-choice supporters contesting South Carolina's issuance of a "Choose Life" license plate as viewpoint discriminatory. The court underscored the plaintiffs' right to challenge government action favoring another viewpoint without first seeking comparable treatment for their own viewpoint.
Additionally, the Fourth Circuit acknowledges that plaintiffs in viewpoint discrimination cases can seek equal treatment. This means creating a level playing field, which can be achieved either by extending benefits to the disfavored group or by denying benefits to the favored group, as seen in Rose, 361 F.3d at 790.
Controversy Over License Plates and Viewpoint Discrimination
The Fourth Circuit's decision in Planned Parenthood of S.C. Inc. v. Rose brought to light the contentious issue of license plates carrying messages that might be seen as viewpoint discriminatory. In this case, the "Choose Life" license plate, initiated by the South Carolina legislature, raised significant First Amendment concerns. The government's argument that the plate represented government speech, thus exempt from the requirement of viewpoint neutrality, was critically examined.
The court applied a four-factor test to determine whether the speech was private or governmental, looking at the program's purpose, the degree of editorial control, the identity of the speaker, and responsibility for the content. Although the first two factors suggested a government-speech designation, the court noted that the private individual choosing and displaying the plate is perceived as endorsing the pro-life message, indicating private speech. This led to a conclusion that the plate represented a hybrid of government and private speech.
First Amendment Implications in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.
Background of the Case and if Viewpoint Discrimination was at Issue
Legal researcher Darren Chaker notes that in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015), the United States Supreme Court addressed a pivotal First Amendment issue involving the nature of speech on specialty license plates. The case revolved around the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board’s rejection of a proposed specialty license plate design submitted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which featured a Confederate battle flag. The rejection was based on the board's belief that many members of the general public would find the design offensive. This decision led to a lawsuit alleging that the board's actions constituted viewpoint discrimination, violating the First Amendment.
Supreme Court's Analysis Concerning if Viewpoint Discrimination Existed
The Supreme Court's decision centered on the classification of specialty license plates as either private or government speech. The distinction is crucial because if the plates were considered private speech, rejecting the design would indeed amount to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. However, if the plates were classified as government speech, the First Amendment's prohibition on viewpoint discrimination would not apply.
The court, in a 5-4 decision, held that Texas’s specialty license plates constitute government speech. This determination was pivotal. In reaching this conclusion, the majority opinion, authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, relied on several factors.
Factors Determining Government Speech and Viewpoint Discrimination
History of License Plates: The court observed that license plates have long been used by states to convey government messages. The history and context of license plates, serving as a form of identification and also as a medium for government speech, played a significant role in the court’s reasoning.
Public Perception: The court reasoned that the general public associates license plates with the state because they are traditionally used for state identification purposes. Therefore, the messages conveyed on these plates are often attributed to the state rather than to the individual car owner.
State Control Over Messages: Texas maintains direct control over the messages conveyed on its specialty license plates. The state's involvement in crafting and approving these messages further supported the government speech designation. The court noted that Texas actively vetted the content of messages proposed for specialty plates, approving some while rejecting others.
Implications of the Decision: By classifying specialty license plates as government speech, the court effectively allowed Texas (and by extension, other states) to approve or reject any specialty plate design based on the message it conveys without running afoul of the First Amendment. This stands in contrast to a situation where license plates are viewed as a forum for private speech, where rejecting a design based on its viewpoint would be constitutionally problematic.
Impact of the Decision on Viewpoint Discrimination
Walker v. Texas Division has significant implications for free speech jurisprudence and the understanding of government speech. It highlights the nuanced balance between allowing governmental entities to express messages and ensuring that such avenues are not used to suppress dissenting private speech. This decision underscores that when the state is the speaker, it retains the authority to select the views it wants to express, thus exempting it from the strict scrutiny typically applied in cases of viewpoint discrimination.
Conclusion
Walker v. Texas Division marks a critical development in First Amendment jurisprudence, providing a framework for understanding the complex interplay between government speech and individual expression. It emphasizes the importance of context and control in determining the nature of speech on government-issued mediums, like license plates. This case reinforces the principle that while the government has broader latitude in expressing its own messages, the line between government and private speech must be carefully navigated to protect the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment.
Conclusion by Darren Chaker on Viewpoint Discrimination
These cases, as analyzed by Darren Chaker, demonstrate the complexities surrounding viewpoint discrimination and the First Amendment. They underscore the importance of understanding the nuances of personal contact with state-endorsed symbols and the intricate balance between government and private speech in the realm of license plates and similar expressions.
About The Author
