NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The long-running legal battle over a Tennessee woman’s personalized license plate is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court. Leah Gilliam, whose vanity plate “69PWNDU” was revoked by the state’s Department of Revenue, is challenging the decision on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the message on her plate is protected free speech.
The controversy began when the state of Tennessee revoked Gilliam’s plate, deeming the alphanumeric combination “offensive to good taste and decency.” Gilliam’s legal team from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argues that the phrase, a combination of a reference to the 1969 moon landing and a gaming term for “owned you,” was unfairly censored. In contrast, state officials argue the phrase has sexually suggestive connotations, according to a report from The Associated Press.
The core legal issue is whether a personalized license plate is considered “government speech” or “private speech.” If the Supreme Court determines that the message is government speech, the state has broad authority to regulate its content. However, if it is deemed private speech, the government cannot restrict it based on viewpoint.
The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the state, holding that personalized license plates are a form of government speech. The ruling cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., which found that specialty license plate designs are government speech. However, as noted in a legal analysis by Reason.com, lower courts across the country have come to conflicting conclusions on whether the same reasoning applies to personalized alphanumeric combinations. The split in rulings has created a legal patchwork that has made a federal decision necessary.
Gilliam’s appeal argues that the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision gives officials too much discretion to censor speech based on what they consider “good taste and decency.” This legal challenge could set a national precedent on the limits of free speech on government-issued property.