From today’s opinion in Whateley v. Lackey, written by Fourth Circuit Judge Pamela Harris and joined by Judges Agee and Keenan:
In Virginia, drivers may personalize their license plates with their own chosen character combinations. Virginia allows them to do so for a fee, and subject to certain restrictions for vulgarity and the like. Curtis Whateley took advantage of this opportunity and applied for a personalized license plate with the characters “FTP&ATF”—by which he meant, “Fuck the Police & Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.” Virginia first issued the plate but then revoked it on the grounds that it was vulgar and could be understood to promote violence….
This appeal requires us to address a question that has divided district courts and state supreme courts in recent years: whether the character combinations on personalized license plates (or “vanity plates”) are government speech or private speech. Does Virginia speak for itself through the character combinations on the personalized plates it issues—in which case, it is entitled to express the views of its choice? Or do Virginia’s personalized plates convey the private speech of drivers like Whateley—in which case, government restrictions on that speech must pass muster under the First Amendment? We conclude that Virginia’s personalized license plate messages are private speech subject to First Amendment protection….
Whateley’s private speech is entitled to First Amendment protection under the public forum doctrine, but whether he will prevail under that doctrine is a different question. That analysis will turn on the nature of the forum Virginia has provided for private speech on its personalized license plates and on Virginia’s reasons for recalling Whateley’s “FTP&ATF” message. {Oversimplifying somewhat, in traditional and designated public forums, open to all speakers on all topics, “governments have limited leeway to restrict speech,” and restrictions generally are subject to strict scrutiny. In a nonpublic forum, by contrast, speech restrictions “only need to be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.”}
The forum analysis can be complicated and fact-intensive. Compare Mitchell v. Md. Motor Vehicle Admin. (Md. 2016) (holding that Maryland vanity plates are private speech subject to First Amendment scrutiny, but that denial of the plaintiff’s requested “MIERDA” message was permissible as a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restriction in a nonpublic forum), with Hart v. Thomas (E.D. Ky. 2019) (holding that Kentucky vanity plate messages are private speech, and that denial of the plaintiff’s “IM GOD” vanity plate violated First Amendment limits applicable to nonpublic fora because it was unreasonable and viewpoint-based). Because “we are a court of review, not first view,” we follow our usual practice and leave this issue to the district court on remand.
For more on the court’s analysis, and in particular why the case isn’t controlled by Walker v. Texas Divisions, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (2015), which dealt with license plate designs as opposed to the personalized vanity tags themselves, see the opinion.
Matthew William Callahan and Eden B. Heilman (ACLU Foundation of Virginia) represent Whateley.
