Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles in his Official Capacity v. Rodney G. Vawter
2015 Ind. LEXIS 926
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Indiana allows vehicle owners to apply for personalized license plates (PLPs); BMV must approve each alphanumeric combination and rejected ~6,000 by 2013.
- Indiana statute authorizes BMV to refuse PLPs that (1) are offensive to good taste and decency, (2) would be misleading, or (3) are otherwise improper.
- BMV implemented an administrative rule and internal policy guide; a PLP Committee exercised discretionary approval/rejection authority and sent form denial letters citing "inappropriate content or invalid format."
- Class plaintiffs challenged the PLP program as vague, overbroad, content‑based regulation of private speech and asserted procedural due process claims for inadequate reasons/notice on denial/revocation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, declaring the statute and policies unconstitutional; BMV appealed.
- Indiana Supreme Court, relying on Walker and related precedent, held PLPs are government speech and reversed, ruling First Amendment content restrictions and due process claim fail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PLPs are government or private speech | PLPs are private speech in a government‑provided forum; thus content‑based restrictions must meet First Amendment scrutiny | PLPs are government speech so the government may select content and reject messages | PLPs are government speech under Walker's three‑factor test; BMV may reject content without Free Speech Clause constraints |
| Whether PLP program creates a public forum | PLPs function as a forum for private expression, triggering forum analysis | PLPs do not fit traditional, designated, limited, or nonpublic forum categories; forum analysis is misplaced | PLPs are not a public forum; forum analysis is inapplicable because PLPs are government speech |
| Overbreadth and vagueness of PLP standards | Statute and policies are vague/overbroad and not content‑neutral | Even if vague/overbroad, government speech status makes those challenges moot for relief sought | Court declined to decide on merits — challenges were moot because government speech status allows BMV control |
| Whether denial/revocation requires due process protections (property interest) | Custom/practice created a property interest in retained PLPs; applicants deserve factual reasons and process | No entitlement to a particular personalized message; BMV retains discretion so no protected property interest | No protected property interest in a specific PLP; procedural due process does not apply; BMV need not provide particularized reasons or hearings |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) (articulates three‑factor government‑speech test for license plates)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government may select messages on its own property; monuments as government speech)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interest for due process exists only when entitlement is created by statute or established rules)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (discretionary governmental benefits do not create protected entitlements)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (forum analysis framework for government property and speech)