US Court of Appeals Sides with Driver in Case of License Plate with Offensive Police Inscription
The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that personalized vehicle license plates are private speech that may be protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The court reached this conclusion while considering the case of a Virginia driver who challenged the revocation of his license plate due to an offensive inscription.
At the same time, the legality of the revocation decision itself still needs to be reviewed by a lower court.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff is Virginia resident Curtis Waitley, who received a personalized license plate "FTP&ATF." As noted by Courthouse News, the abbreviation stands for the phrase "Fuck the Police and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."
The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) initially approved this license plate, and the driver used it for over a year. However, after a complaint from a citizen, the agency revoked it, citing rules prohibiting personalized plates with obscene, vulgar, or offensive content.
The trial court sided with the DMV, ruling that personalized license plates constitute government speech. Waitley appealed this decision.
What the Appellate Court Decided
The panel of judges concluded that personalized license plates are private speech, not government messages, and therefore may be protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
The ruling states that the combination of characters "FTP&ATF" is a meaningful message perceived as the vehicle owner’s expression. The court also noted that the plate was revoked specifically because of its content, not its registration function.
The appellate court emphasized that while the state has the right to approve or deny personalized license plates, the mere fact of such control does not mean all inscriptions automatically become government speech.
This is the first decision by a US federal appellate court directly defining personalized license plates as private speech.
What Happens Next
The appellate court did not rule on whether the revocation of the license plate itself was lawful.
The case was sent back for reconsideration to the lower court, which must determine whether the restrictions applied by the DMV comply with the requirements of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
In its decision, the appellate court also referred to US Supreme Court precedents in Matal v. Tam and Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, which dealt with the distinction between private and government speech.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
