Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.
135 S. Ct. 2239
| SCOTUS | 2015

Background

  • Texas issues general‑issue and specialty license plates; specialty designs are selected or approved by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board and the State owns the designs.
  • The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) submitted a specialty plate design that incorporated the Confederate battle flag; the Board rejected the design after public comment, citing that many found it offensive and associating the flag with hateful groups.
  • SCV sued, arguing the Board’s rejection violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination against private speech.
  • The District Court upheld the Board; a divided Fifth Circuit panel reversed, treating specialty plate designs as private speech and forbidding viewpoint discrimination.
  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Fifth Circuit, holding specialty plate designs are government speech and therefore the State may control their content.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Texas specialty license plate designs are government or private speech SCV: designs proposed by private parties are private speech displayed on state property; forum analysis applies and viewpoint discrimination is forbidden Board: the State selects, owns, issues, and controls plate designs; plates convey a government message Government speech — specialty plate designs are government speech, so Free Speech Clause restrictions on viewpoint discrimination do not apply
Whether forum analysis (public/limited/nonpublic forum) governs review of design restrictions SCV: plates function as a limited public forum for private messages; content‑based exclusions require strict scrutiny Board: forum analysis is inapposite because the State is speaking for itself when it issues plates Forum analysis rejected as inapplicable; government‑speech framework controls
Whether the Board’s rejection was impermissible compelled or restricted private expression SCV: rejection suppressed private viewpoints (viewpoint discrimination) on a forum for private speech Board: State cannot be compelled to include messages it does not endorse; it may refuse designs it deems offensive No compelled‑speech problem for the State here; SCV cannot force Texas to adopt the Confederate‑flag design
Whether the Board’s stated public‑safety and offensiveness rationales save the decision SCV: offensiveness is viewpoint‑based and unsafe justification lacks evidence; strict scrutiny would apply if private speech Board: rejecting offensive designs protects State identification interests and public safety; as government speech it need not meet strict scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause Court did not accept forum/viewpoint challenge; as government speech the Board may refuse the design (safety/offensiveness rationales not evaluated under strict First Amendment forum tests)

Key Cases Cited

  • Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (city’s acceptance/display of donated monuments is government speech)
  • Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (State may not compel private persons to display ideological messages; individuals convey messages when displaying state plates)
  • Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Assn., 544 U.S. 550 (2005) (government‑funded advertising that expresses government views is government speech)
  • Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (government programs may promote certain permissible goals without being required to fund opposing viewpoints)
  • Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) (limiting private speech in a forum based on viewpoint is impermissible)
  • Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985) (forum analysis—distinguishing traditional, designated, limited, and nonpublic forums)
  • Perry Educ. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (framework for forum classification and speech restrictions)
  • Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000) (electoral process as a check on government speech and funding choices)
  • International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) (nonpublic forum concept where government acts as proprietor)
  • Hurley v. Irish‑American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (First Amendment protects private associations from compelled inclusion of messages inconsistent with their views)
  • West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (compelled expression doctrine protecting individual conscience)
Read the full case