Northern District of California Holds Vanity License Plates Are Not Government Speech
California DMV regulations excluding plaintiffs' personalized plates were like the PTO trademark registration restrictions of SLANTS and FUCT—restrictions struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment.
February 16, 2021 at 09:52 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This article appeared in The Intellectual Property Strategist, an ALM/Law Journal Newsletters publication that provides a practical source of both business and litigation tactics in the fast-changing area of intellectual property law, including litigating IP rights, patent damages, venue and infringement issues, inter partes review, trademarks on social media – and more.
Depravity or lust, hostility or prejudice? Whatever those might be. In Ogilvie v. Gordon, No. 20-cv-01707 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2020), the Northern District of California found that California DMV regulations excluding plaintiffs' personalized plates were like the PTO trademark registration restrictions of SLANTS and FUCT — restrictions struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. The district court followed the Supreme Court in the trademark cases Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) and Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019), finding the PTO's refusal to register certain trademarks was improper viewpoint discrimination. The result for would-be vanity license plates holders? The California DMV may not prevent registration of vanity plates like QUEER, BO1LUX, DUK N A, or OGWOOLF.
The First Amendment prohibition on viewpoint discrimination does not extend to government speech. For private speech, the government may place restrictions on the use of certain fora, but the extent to which the government controls access depends on the type of forum. The Supreme Court has recognized "(1) the traditional public forum; (2) the designated public forum; (3) the limited public forum; and (4) the nonpublic forum." Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200, 215-16 (2015). A traditional public forum "ha[s] immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, ha[s] been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Id. at 215. A designated public forum occurs where "government property that has not traditionally been regarded as a public forum is intentionally opened up for that purpose." Id. A limited public forum "exists where a government has reserve[ed a forum] for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics", and a nonpublic forum is one where "the government is acting as a proprietor, managing its internal operations." Id. In a traditional and designated public forum, the court applies strict scrutiny to government restrictions on private speech. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 469-70 (2009). Government restrictions on private speech in a limited and nonpublic forum must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Id. at 470.
Ogilvie is factually distinct from the Supreme Court in Walker — the case prohibiting registration of the Confederate flag on citizens' license plates. In Walker, the Texas Division of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans challenged the State of Texas after the Department of Motor Vehicles Board denied a proposed specialty license plate design featuring a Confederate battle flag. The Sons of Confederate Veterans argued that the DMV had committed unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by denying their Confederate flag license plate design on the basis that it was "offensive to any member of the public." Walker, 576 U.S. at 205. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court applied the following factors to determine that license plate designs are government speech: "(1) whether the government had historically used the designs to communicate messages from the States; (2) whether Texas license plate designs are often closely identified in the public mind with the State; and (3) the degree to which Texas maintained direct control over the messages conveyed on its specialty plates." Ogilvie v. Gordon, No. 20-cv-01707 (N.D. Cal. July 08, 2020) at 4-5. Justice Breyer explained that like monuments in public parks, license plates are government speech and "[w]hen government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says." Walker, 576 U.S. at 207.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
Shareholder Democracy? The Chatter Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Is Spurring Between Lawyers and Clients
6 minute readMany LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250