Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 23, 2015 Decided June 18, 2015 |
|
| Full case name | John Walker, III, Chairman, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, et al., Petitioners v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., et al. |
| Docket nos. | 14-144 |
| Citations | 576 U.S. 200 (more)
135 S. Ct. 2239; 192 L. Ed. 2d 274
|
| Prior history | Summary judgment granted, Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Vandergriff, No. 1:11-cv-01049 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2013); reversed, 759 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 752 (2014). |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2015. The Court decided that messages on license plates are a form of government speech. This means the government has more control over what messages appear on them, compared to private citizens' speech.
The case started when the Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans wanted a special license plate. They asked for a plate with an image of the Confederate Battle Flag. Texas officials said no to their request. The group then sued, saying that denying their special plate went against their First Amendment right to free speech.
Understanding the Court's Decision
The Supreme Court had to decide if a license plate is a place for private citizens to express themselves or if it's a way for the government to share its own messages. This was a key question in the case.
The Majority's View: Government Speech
The main decision of the Court was written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The majority of the justices agreed that license plates are a form of government speech. This means that when a message appears on a state-issued license plate, it looks like the state itself is approving or supporting that message.
Justice Breyer pointed to an earlier case from 2009, Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. In that case, the Court said a city did not have to put up a monument from a small religion in a public park. This was because the park was seen as a place for the city's own messages, not a free-for-all for private groups.
Breyer explained that if people want to display a message, they can use a bumper sticker. This allows them to share their message without it seeming like the government supports it.
The Dissenting View: Private Expression
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the justices who disagreed with the majority. He argued that special license plates are often seen as a way for people to show their own messages. He called them "little mobile billboards" for drivers.
Justice Alito believed that when the state rejects a design, it's like they are choosing which viewpoints are allowed and which are not. This is known as viewpoint discrimination, which is usually not allowed under the First Amendment.
