- Tennessee Supreme Court rules personalized license plates are not protected by the First Amendment. The court determined the state can revoke plates based on the message.
- The case began when Leah Gilliam’s plate, “69PWNDU,” was revoked after 11 years.
- Gilliam’s attorneys plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Full Story
The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, Feb. 26, that a personalized license plate is not protected under the First Amendment, striking down the claim of a woman whose custom plate was revoked.
Leah Gilliam’s lawsuit
The decision centers around Leah Gilliam, who filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Revenue after receiving a letter in 2021 stating her license plate “69PWNDU” was being revoked. Gilliam had held the plate since 2010.
Point phone camera here
The state argued the plate referenced sexual domination, while Gilliam contended the alphanumeric combination referred to her phone number and gaming hobby.
State argues personalized license plates are government speech
In court, state attorneys argued free speech does not apply to alphanumeric combinations on government issued license plates. They emphasized the First Amendment cannot apply to government speech.
The first judge sided with the state, but an appellate court overturned the decision, sending the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court for a final ruling.
Tennessee Supreme Court decision
In their ruling, the justices noted, “Tennessee’s personalized license plates are government speech or private speech.”
They also said the First Amendment does not prevent the state from revoking Gilliam’s plate based on the content of its message.
They referenced a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Texas, where justices ruled specialty and personalized plates are government speech.
Gilliam’s attorneys plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing personalized license plates should be viewed as a statement from the car’s owner, not the government.
[Kalé Carey]
TENNESSEE’S SUPREME COURT RULES FREE SPEECH STOPS AT THE BUMPER… WITH WEDNESDAY’S DECISION SAYING A PERSONALIZED LICENSE PLATE IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
THE DECISION CENTERS AROUND LEAH GILLIAM, WHO FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
HER CAR’S IDENTIFIER READ “69PWNDU”—A CODE SHE’D HELD SINCE 2010. THEN, 11 YEARS LATER, A LETTER ARRIVED STATING IT WAS BEING REVOKED.
THE STATE CLAIMED IT REFERRED TO SEXUAL DOMINATION, BUT GILLIAM ARGUED THE NUMBERS WERE A REFERENCE TO HER PHONE NUMBER AND GAMING HOBBY.
GILLIAM TOOK HER FIGHT TO TENNESSEE STATE COURT, CLAIMING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
IN THE COURTROOM, STATE ATTORNEY’S ARGUED FREE SPEECH DOESN’T APPLY TO ALPHANUMERIC COMBINATIONS ON LICENSE PLATES BECAUSE THEY ARE GOVERNMENT ISSUED AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT CAN’T APPLY TO ITS OWN SPEECH.
THE FIRST JUDGE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE. THEN, AN APPELLATE COURT OVERTURNED THAT DECISION, LEAVING THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT TO MAKE THE FINAL CALL
THE JUSTICES WROTE, “Tennessee’s personalized license plates are government speech or private speech.” MEANING THE, “First Amendment does not prohibit the State from revoking Gilliam’s plate based on the content of its message.”
THEY CITED A 2015 U-S SUPREME COURT CASE OUT OF TEXAS, WHERE THE JUSTICES RULED THAT SPECIALTY OR PERSONALIZED PLATES CONSTITUTE GOVERNMENT SPEECH.
GILLIAM’S ATTORNEYS PLAN TO TAKE THE CASE TO THE NATION’S HIGH COURT.
IN RESPONSE TO THE RULING, THEY ARGUED THAT PERSONALIZED LICENSE PLATES ARE A STATEMENT FROM THE CAR’S OWNER, NOT GOVERNMENT DERIVED SPEECH.
FOR STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS, I’M KALÉ CAREY.
FOR MORE ON STORIES LIKE THIS AND OTHER UNBIASED UPDATES DOWNLOAD THE S-A-N MOBILE APP.
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.
