Mitchell v. Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration
148 A.3d 319
| Md. | 2016Background
- John T. Mitchell obtained Maryland vanity license plates in 2009 displaying the word “MIERDA” (Spanish slang; Mitchell conceded one meaning is English “shit”).
- The MVA approved the plates initially; after a 2011 complaint the MVA researched the word, concluded it was profane, and rescinded the plates under COMAR 11.15.29.02(D) (prohibiting profanities, epithets, obscenities).
- Mitchell exhausted administrative review, lost before an ALJ, then lost in the Circuit Court and the Court of Special Appeals; he petitioned to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
- The central legal questions: whether vanity-plate messages are government speech or private speech; what forum (traditional/designated/limited/nonpublic) vanity plates implicate; what standard applies to content restrictions; and whether the MVA’s action was lawful on the record.
- The Court concluded vanity-plate messages are private speech in a nonpublic forum, that nonpublic-forum restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral, and that the MVA’s regulation and recall of Mitchell’s plate satisfied that standard and were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Mitchell's Argument | MVA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vanity-plate messages are government speech or private speech | "MIERDA" is private expression by vehicle owner; not attributable to State | Plates are governmental property but vanity messages are owner-created; alternatively, specialty-plate precedents support government-speech classification | Vanity-plate messages are private speech (not government speech) under Walker factors |
| Forum classification for vanity plates (traditional/designated/limited/nonpublic) | Vanity plates create a designated or limited public forum, triggering strict scrutiny (or at least strict review) | Vanity plates are a nonpublic forum; restrictions need only be reasonable and viewpoint neutral | Vanity plates are a nonpublic forum (alternatively a limited public forum), so reasonable + viewpoint-neutral standard applies |
| Proper standard of review for content restriction on vanity plates | Maryland’s restriction on "profanities" fails First Amendment protection and/or is overbroad/arbitrary | Regulation is content-based but permissible in a nonpublic forum if reasonable and viewpoint neutral; not viewpoint discriminatory | COMAR §11.15.29.02(D) is reasonable and viewpoint neutral as applied; restriction permissible in nonpublic forum |
| Application and record support: did rescission of "MIERDA" comply with regulation and have substantial evidence? | Word has benign meanings; MVA misapplied translation and imputed offensive intent; agency acted arbitrarily and overbroadly | MVA had evidence (Wikipedia research, complaint, Mitchell’s testimony) that "mierda" is commonly profane/"shit"; agency discretion applies | MVA acted pursuant to the regulation, based on substantial evidence; rescission affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015) (Supreme Court test to distinguish government speech from private speech on license plates)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government speech and monument-speech factors informing attribution analysis)
- Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (public-forum framework: traditional, designated, nonpublic)
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (nonpublic forum standard: reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (limited public forum must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral)
- Christian Legal Soc. Chapter v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010) (reaffirming limits and standards for limited public forums)
- Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) (nonpublic forum principles for government-controlled spaces)
- Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) (analyzing vanity plates and concluding no public forum created)
- Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. ex rel. Griffin v. Comm'r of Virginia Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 288 F.3d 610 (4th Cir.) (cited for discussion of plate cases and forum/speech analyses)