Tennessee Supreme Court rules personalized license plates lack free speech protection

In a recent ruling, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that personalized license plates do not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, directly impacting Leah Gilliam, who had her plate '69PWNDU' revoked after 11 years of use. This case stemmed from a 2021 notification from the Tennessee Department of Revenue claiming that the alphanumeric combination had sexual connotations, which Gilliam contested, insisting it referenced her phone number and gaming interests. The court's ruling affirms the position that these plates are considered government speech rather than private expression. This decision followed a series of legal battles that traversed various jurisdictions. Initially, a lower court had sided with Gilliam, overturning a state decision, but this was subsequently contested by the state citing the First Amendment's limitations concerning government speech. In reviewing past precedents, the court referred to a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the nature of specialty plates as government expression, which ultimately guided their ruling. The justices noted that while the nature of the alphanumeric characters on the plates may suggest personal expression, the state maintains significant regulatory control over these messages, thus categorizing them as government speech. This conclusion aligns with the viewpoint held by most courts that have assessed similar cases post the Walker decision, emphasizing a marked distinction between license designs that historically convey government messages and the alphanumeric sequences utilized in Delaware's 50-year history of vanity plates. Gilliam's attorneys are preparing to take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that personalized plates should be viewed as statements reflecting the car owner's personal identity rather than governmental perspectives. This ongoing legal discourse may have broader implications for the interpretation of free speech in relation to state-issued licenses across the nation, as it raises fundamental questions regarding the boundaries of self-expression versus governmental oversight.