Cressman v. Thompson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17685
10th Cir.2013Background
- Oklahoma's standard license plate includes an image of Allan Houser's Sacred Rain Arrow; Cressman objects on religious grounds.
- Cressman contends the image communicates Native American religious beliefs contrary to his Christian beliefs.
- To avoid displaying the image, Cressman purchased specialty plates with fees, or considered covering the image (which may violate statute).
- Oklahoma law requires license plates to be clearly visible; covering the plate can yield misdemeanor penalties and fines.
- Cressman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, seeking injunction or no-cost specialty plates.
- District court dismissed the federal claims; the appeal challenges standing and the compelled-speech claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to sue in official capacities | Cressman has injury in fact, causation, and redressability against officials enforcing 1113. | Standing may be lacking for some defendants who lack enforcement authority. | Standing established for all defendants in official capacities except Ms. Allen. |
| Plausibility of a compelled-speech claim | License plate image conveys a religious message and compels speech against beliefs. | Image is not protected speech or is government speech not subject to First Amendment scrutiny. | Plaintiff plausibly alleges a compelled-speech claim and symbolic-speech protection. |
| Is the license-plate image government speech and thus not subject to First Amendment scrutiny | Wooley and related cases prevent government from compelling private speech; image on plate is linked to driver. | Image is government speech; not subject to Free Speech Clause scrutiny. | Under Wooley and related analysis, the claim is not foreclosed as government speech; district court reversal warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1977) (compelled display of state motto violates First Amendment)
- Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (U.S. 1943) (prohibits compulsory patriotic expressions over speech rights)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1989) (symbolic speech protections extend beyond words)
- Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1974) (intent to convey a message and likelihood of understanding determine speech)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1995) (compelled-speech analysis may apply beyond narrow 'particularized' messages)
- Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004) (speech protection applies to compelled speech in non-ideological contexts)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (allow suits against state officials for ongoing federal-law violations)
- Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550 (U.S. 2005) (government speech vs. private-compelled speech distinctions)
- Ward v. Utah, 321 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2003) (standing when there is credible threat of enforcement)