126 A.3d 165
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2015Background
- John T. Mitchell applied for and received Maryland vanity (personalized) plates showing the letters “MIERDA” on a commemorative Agricultural plate; he renewed them and paid the fees.
- A public complaint prompted the MVA to investigate; staff consulted Wikipedia and determined “mierda” is Spanish for the profanity “shit.”
- The MVA rescinded the plates under COMAR 11.15.29.02(D) (plates containing profanities, epithets, or obscenities), offered refund/options, and provided regular plates pending replacement.
- Mitchell requested a hearing, argued the term could be non‑profane (e.g., “compost”) and asserted a First Amendment right; the ALJ upheld the MVA’s recall and the circuit court affirmed.
- The Court of Special Appeals addressed whether vanity‑plate messages are government speech or private speech on government property and, if private, which forum standard applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mitchell) | Defendant's Argument (MVA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are vanity‑plate messages government speech or private speech on government property? | Vanity messages are private speech; vehicle owners create and intend the message. | Special‑plate precedent (Walker) suggests license plates may be government speech; plates are state IDs. | Vanity‑plate messages are private speech on government property, not government speech. |
| If private speech, what forum are vanity plates? | Mitchell: vanity plates create a public (designated or limited) forum for expression. | MVA: vanity plates are a nonpublic forum (state controls access and purpose is identification/revenue). | Maryland vanity plates are a nonpublic forum. |
| Was rescission reasonable and viewpoint‑neutral under the First Amendment? | Mitchell: disallowing “MIERDA” fails strict scrutiny or is not applied neutrally because word has nonprofane meanings. | MVA: restriction against profanities/obscenities is reasonable given plates are state‑issued IDs and is viewpoint neutral (subject matter restriction). | As applied, the MVA’s prohibition on profanities/obscenities is reasonable and viewpoint neutral; rescission upheld. |
| Did MVA violate its own regulation by acting on a single complaint? | Mitchell: MVA acted on a single complaint in violation of COMAR 11.15.29.04. | MVA: it investigated independently (looked up meaning) before rescinding; the complaint alone did not decide the matter. | MVA did not violate its regulation; it conducted independent investigation prior to recall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) (held specialty license‑plate designs are government speech)
- Perry Education Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (articulated forum doctrine and nonpublic forum standard)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (limited‑forum analysis; reasonableness/viewpoint neutrality in nonpublic fora)
- Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) (airport terminals are nonpublic fora; government may impose reasonable, viewpoint‑neutral restrictions)
- Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) (vanity plates are a nonpublic forum; prohibition on scatological terms upheld as reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (definition of obscenity and its limits under the First Amendment)