Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
No. 13-1030
Decided on Remand:
our
previous
opinion
in
this
case,
we
affirmed
the
The State
set
out
in
more
detail
in
our
now-vacated
decision,
rejected
efforts
to
include
pro-choice
license
the
State
violated
the
First
and
Fourteenth
The
district
the
court
granted
summary
judgment
in
favor
of
The
State
argued
that
the
message
conveyed
through
permissible
discrimination
when
for
it
administering
to
engage
the
license
in
viewpoint
plate
program.
See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009)
(A government entity has the right to speak for itself . . .
and to select the views that it wants to express. (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Applying
the
factors
identified
in
Sons
of
Confederate
Tata,
in
Carolina
violation
filed
of
the
petition
First
Amendment.
seeking
review
Id.
of
our
constitute
government
speech
and
that
Texas
was
proposed
135
S.
Ct.
[Confederate
at
2253.
battle
The
flag]
Supreme
design.
Court
thereafter
specialty
substantively
license
plate
indistinguishable
program
from
that
at
in
issue
here
is
Walker,
and
the
Accordingly,
plates
issued
we
under
now
conclude
North
that
Carolinas
specialty
program
license
amount
to
speaks,
is
it
determining
the
not
barred
content
of
by
the
what
it
Free
Speech
says.).
Clause
We
from
therefore
much
less
overrule,
this
Circuits
common-sense
of
both
government
and
private
speech.
Insisting
understood,
lead
does
not
to
the
conclusion
that
the
North
case,
it
presents
mixed
speechwith
private
speech
Accordingly,
specialty
Choice
plate,
plate
North
while
repeatedly
Carolina
violated
rejecting
the
First
Respect
Amendment.
I.
A.
Premised
on
mistrust
of
governmental
power,
the
First
310,
340
(2010).
Chief
amongst
the
evils
the
First
different
others.
speakers,
Id.
allowing
speech
by
some
but
not
of
restriction.
the
speaker
is
the
rationale
for
the
First
Amendments
neutrality
engages
in
its
own
protections
check
only
expressive
conduct,
the
Free
government
speech
doctrine,
Johanns
v.
Livestock
Mktg. Assn, 544 U.S. 550, 574 (2005) (Souter, J., dissenting),
the government is generally entitled to say what it wishes, and
7
that
is
neither
purely
government
speech
nor
purely
Planned Parenthood
of S.C. Inc. v. Rose, 361 F.3d 786, 789 (4th Cir. 2004).
In
tipped
in
favor
of
private
year
in
Walker,
the
speech
interests
so
as
to
Id.
Supreme
Court
deemed
Texas
135 S.
Ct. 2239.
U.S.
460,
case
dealing
with
privately
donated
permanent
49
omitted).
(quotation
marks
and
citation
These
[three]
to
call
for
the
same
resultthat
is,
that
both
Id.
B.
Applying the Walker framework here, I conclude that North
Carolinas authorization of a Choose Life plate and rejection
of
Respect
speech.
Choice
plate
is
not
simply
pure
government
pro-choice
plate
constitutes
viewpoint
discrimination
in
putting
with
slogans
graphics in 1981.
77
(1994).
the
on
first
its
Walker
license
factor,
plates
North
in
Carolina
1954,
adding
North
Carolinas
vast
array
of
specialty
plates
universities,
substantially
postdates
the
use
of
making
by
purchasing
the
license
plate.
Am.
Civil
Liberties Union of N.C. v. Tata, 742 F.3d 563, 572 (4th Cir.
2014) (citing Remark of Representative Tim Moore to the North
Carolina House Fin. Comm. (June 2, 2011)).
then,
North
vehicle
Carolina
owners
to
expressly
[m]ake
and
Not surprisingly,
repeatedly
statement
with
invite[d]
its
specialized
or
Id.
(citations
omitted).
Further,
North
Carolina
common
causes.
interests
to
promote
themselves
and/or
their
and
and
reasonable
the
association
government,
Walker,
between
135
S.
the
Ct.
speech
at
at
2248-49
any
such
strong
association
into
serious
doubt.
In
considered
whether
persons
who
observe[d]
the
Texas
Walker,
135
S.
Ct.
at
2249
(quotation
marks,
rush
hour
surely
does
not
routinely
and
reasonably
North
Carolina
repeatedly
told
its
citizens
that
common
causes.
interests
Tata,
742
to
F.3d
promote
at
572
allow[ing] citizens
themselves
(quoting
and/or
North
their
Carolina
has surely sunken in and must impact the way the North Carolina
public views its specialty platesas a forum allowing them to
make a statement and promote themselves and their causes, just
as their government described.
Finally, regarding the third factor, state control over the
messages conveyed on specialty plates, here, as in Walker, the
11
20-79.4.
North
Carolinas
General
Assembly
Plaintiffs
own
verified
complaint
Id.
demonstrates,
must
And,
North
Plaintiffs
complain
repeatedly
that
North
Carolina
has
expressly
and
J.A.
governments favor.
According to North Carolina, the control factor alone is
dispositive as to whether speech is the governments.
North
new
testthe
so-called
control
testthat
focuses
Appellants Supp.
Br. at 4.
Supreme
speech
on
Court
surely
government
recognized
control
alone
that
hinging
could
government
incentivize
the
to
discriminate
messages at will.
against
disfavored
speakers
and
Court
supports
such
circular
inquiry
that
could
so
easily
specialty
number,
plates,
are
like
the
unquestionably
state
name
and
government
the
vehicles
speech.
But
tag
the
79.4.
On
appeal,
specialty
plates
North
are
viewpoint-discriminate
Carolina
argued
government
free
from
only
speech,
First
that
North
Amendment
because
its
Carolina
can
constraints.
at
issue
is
not
purely
the
governments,
Because the
the
First
And
II.
Never has the line between the public and private sectors
been as blurred as it is today.
prisons
and
public
hospitals.
Public-private
develop
real
estate
and
buildings.
build
sports
partnerships
facilities
and
office
companies.
lines
blurred
have
in
the
speech
realm,
too,
as
And the
stadium
but
also
soft
drinks,
banks,
and
car
dealers
and
Id.
at
5.
Such
speech
need
not
be
viewed
Carolina
invited
its
vehicle
owners
to
[m]ake
they
were
on
political issue.
the
governments
side
of
highly
divisive
Because the
pro-choice
plate
constitutes
viewpoint
discrimination
in
14