WALKER v. TEXAS DIVISION, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Supreme Court Cases
135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015)
Opinions
Majority Opinion Author
Stephen Breyer
Majority Participants
Dissenting Participants
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
WALKER, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
MOTOR VEHICLES BOARD, ET AL. v. TEXAS
DIVISION, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS,
INC., ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14鈥144. Argued March 23, 2015鈥擠ecided June 18, 2015
Texas offers automobile owners a choice between general-issue and
specialty license plates. Those who want the State to issue a particu-
lar specialty plate may propose a plate design, comprising a slogan, a
graphic, or both. If the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board
approves the design, the State will make it available for display on
vehicles registered in Texas. Here, the Texas Division of the Sons of
Confederate Veterans and its officers (collectively SCV) filed suit
against the Chairman and members of the Board (collectively Board),
arguing that the Board鈥檚 rejection of SCV鈥檚 proposal for a specialty
plate design featuring a Confederate battle flag violated the Free
Speech Clause. The District Court entered judgment for the Board,
but the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that Texas鈥檚 specialty license
plate designs are private speech and that the Board engaged in con-
stitutionally forbidden viewpoint discrimination when it refused to
approve SCV鈥檚 design.
Held: Texas鈥檚 specialty license plate designs constitute government
speech, and thus Texas was entitled to refuse to issue plates featur-
ing SCV鈥檚 proposed design. Pp. 5鈥18.
(a) When government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech
Clause from determining the content of what it says. Pleasant Grove
City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467鈥468. A government is generally
entitled to promote a program, espouse a policy, or take a position.
Were the Free Speech Clause interpreted otherwise, 鈥渋t is not easy to
imagine how government would function.鈥 Id., at 468. That is not to
2 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Syllabus
say that a government鈥檚 ability to express itself is without restriction.
Constitutional and statutory provisions outside of the Free Speech
Clause may limit government speech, and the Free Speech Clause it-
self may constrain the government鈥檚 speech if, for example, the gov-
ernment seeks to compel private persons to convey the government鈥檚
speech. Pp. 5鈥6.
(b) This Court鈥檚 precedents regarding government speech provide
the appropriate framework through which to approach the case.
Pp. 6鈥17.
(1) The same analysis the Court used in Summum鈥攖o conclude
that a city 鈥渁ccepting a privately donated monument and placing it
on city property鈥 was engaging in government speech, 555 U. S., at
464鈥攍eads to the conclusion that government speech is at issue here.
First, history shows that States, including Texas, have long used li-
cense plates to convey government speech, e.g., slogans urging action,
promoting tourism, and touting local industries. Cf. id., at 470. Se-
cond, Texas license plate designs 鈥渁re often closely identified in the
public mind with the [State].鈥 Id., at 472. Each plate is a govern-
ment article serving the governmental purposes of vehicle registra-
tion and identification. The governmental nature of the plates is
clear from their faces: the State places the name 鈥淭EXAS鈥 in large
letters across the top of every plate. Texas also requires Texas vehi-
cle owners to display license plates, issues every Texas plate, and
owns all of the designs on its plates. The plates are, essentially, gov-
ernment IDs, and ID issuers 鈥渢ypically do not permit鈥 their IDs to
contain 鈥渕essage[s] with which they do not wish to be associated,鈥
id., at 471. Third, Texas maintains direct control over the messages
conveyed on its specialty plates, by giving the Board final approval
over each design. Like the city government in Summum, Texas 鈥渉as
effectively controlled the messages [conveyed] by exercising final ap-
proval authority over their selection.鈥 Id., at 473. These considera-
tions, taken together, show that Texas鈥檚 specialty plates are similar
enough to the monuments in Summum to call for the same result.
Pp. 7鈥12.
(2) Forum analysis, which applies to government restrictions on
purely private speech occurring on government property, Cornelius v.
NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 800, is not
appropriate when the State is speaking on its own behalf. The par-
ties agree that Texas鈥檚 specialty license plates are not a traditional
public forum. Further, Texas鈥檚 policies and the nature of its license
plates indicate that the State did not intend its specialty plates to
serve as either a designated public forum鈥攚here 鈥済overnment prop-
erty . . . not traditionally . . . a public forum is intentionally opened
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3
Syllabus
up for that purpose,鈥 Summum, supra, at 469鈥攐r a limited public fo-
rum鈥攚here a government 鈥渞eserv[es a forum] for certain groups or
for the discussion of certain topics,鈥 Rosenberger v. Rector and Visi-
tors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829. The State exercises final au-
thority over the messages that may be conveyed by its specialty
plates, it takes ownership of each specialty plate design, and it has
traditionally used its plates for government speech. These features of
Texas specialty plates militate against a determination that Texas
has created a public forum. Finally, the plates are not a nonpublic
forum, where the 鈥済overnment is . . . a proprietor, managing its in-
ternal operations.鈥 International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.
v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672, 678鈥679. The fact that private parties take
part in the design and propagation of a message does not extinguish
the governmental nature of the message or transform the govern-
ment鈥檚 role into that of a mere forum provider. See Summum, supra,
at 470鈥471. Nor does Texas鈥檚 requirement that vehicle owners pay
annual fees for specialty plates mean that the plates are a forum for
private speech. And this case does not resemble other nonpublic fo-
rum cases. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators鈥 Assn., 460 U. S.
37, 48鈥49; Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298; and Cornelius,
supra, at 804鈥806, distinguished. Pp. 13鈥17.
(c) The determination that Texas鈥檚 specialty license plate designs
are government speech does not mean that the designs do not also
implicate the free speech rights of private persons. The Court has
acknowledged that drivers who display a State鈥檚 selected license
plate designs convey the messages communicated through those de-
signs. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 717, n. 15. The Court
has also recognized that the First Amendment stringently limits a
State鈥檚 authority to compel a private party to express a view with
which the private party disagrees. Just as Texas cannot require SCV
to convey 鈥渢he State鈥檚 ideological message,鈥 id., at 715, SCV cannot
force Texas to include a Confederate battle flag on its specialty li-
cense plates. Pp. 17鈥18.
759 F. 3d 388, reversed.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS,
GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dis-
senting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ.,
joined.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 14鈥144
_________________
JOHN WALKER, III, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF MOTOR VEHICLES BOARD, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. TEXAS DIVISION, SONS OF CONFEDERATE
VETERANS, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[June 18, 2015]
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
Texas offers automobile owners a choice between ordi-
nary and specialty license plates. Those who want the
State to issue a particular specialty plate may propose a
plate design, comprising a slogan, a graphic, or (most
commonly) both. If the Texas Department of Motor Vehi-
cles Board approves the design, the State will make it
available for display on vehicles registered in Texas.
In this case, the Texas Division of the Sons of Confeder-
ate Veterans proposed a specialty license plate design
featuring a Confederate battle flag. The Board rejected
the proposal. We must decide whether that rejection
violated the Constitution鈥檚 free speech guarantees. See
Amdts. 1, 14. We conclude that it did not.
I
A
Texas law requires all motor vehicles operating on the
State鈥檚 roads to display valid license plates. See Tex.
Transp. Code Ann. 搂搂502.001 (West Supp. 2014), 504.001
2 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
(2013), 504.943 (Supp. 2014). And Texas makes available
several kinds of plates. Drivers may choose to display the
State鈥檚 general-issue license plates. See Texas Dept. of
Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Registration Manual 9.1
(Apr. 2015). Each of these plates contains the word
鈥淭exas,鈥 a license plate number, a silhouette of the
State, a graphic of the Lone Star, and the slogan
鈥淭he Lone Star State.鈥 Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles, The
Texas Classic FAQs (July 16, 2012), online at
http://www.txdmv.gov/motorists/license-plates (all Inter-
net materials as visited June 16, 2015, and available in
Clerk of Court鈥檚 case file). In the alternative, drivers may
choose from an assortment of specialty license plates.
搂504.008(b) (West 2013). Each of these plates contains the
word 鈥淭exas,鈥 a license plate number, and one of a selec-
tion of designs prepared by the State. See ibid.; Specialty
License Plates, http://www.txdmv.gov/motorists/license-
plates/specialty-license-plates (displaying available Texas
specialty plates); Create a Plate: Your Design,
http://www.myplates.com/BackgroundOnly (same). Finally,
Texas law provides for personalized plates (also known
as vanity plates). 43 Tex. Admin. Code 搂217.45(c)(7)
(2015). Pursuant to the personalization program, a vehi-
cle owner may request a particular alphanumeric pattern
for use as a plate number, such as 鈥淏OB鈥 or 鈥淭EXPL8.鈥
Here we are concerned only with the second category of
plates, namely specialty license plates, not with the per-
sonalization program. Texas offers vehicle owners a va-
riety of specialty plates, generally for an annual fee. See
搂217.45(b)(2). And Texas selects the designs for specialty
plates through three distinct processes.
First, the state legislature may specifically call for the
development of a specialty license plate. See Tex. Transp.
Code 搂搂504.602鈥504.663 (West 2013 and Supp. 2014). The
legislature has enacted statutes authorizing, for example,
plates that say 鈥淜eep Texas Beautiful鈥 and 鈥淢others
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3
Opinion of the Court
Against Drunk Driving,鈥 plates that 鈥渉onor鈥 the Texas
citrus industry, and plates that feature an image of the
World Trade Center towers and the words 鈥淔ight Terror-
ism.鈥 See 搂搂504.602, 504.608, 504.626, 504.647.
Second, the Board may approve a specialty plate design
proposal that a state-designated private vendor has
created at the request of an individual or organization.
See 搂搂504.6011(a), 504.851(a); 43 Tex. Admin. Code
搂217.52(b). Among the plates created through the private-
vendor process are plates promoting the 鈥淜eller Indians鈥
and plates with the slogan 鈥淕et it Sold with RE/MAX.鈥
Third, the Board 鈥渕ay create new specialty license
plates on its own initiative or on receipt of an application
from a鈥 nonprofit entity seeking to sponsor a specialty
plate. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. 搂搂504.801(a), (b). A non-
profit must include in its application 鈥渁 draft design of the
specialty license plate.鈥 43 Tex. Admin. Code
搂217.45(i)(2)(C). And Texas law vests in the Board author-
ity to approve or to disapprove an application. See
搂217.45(i)(7). The relevant statute says that the Board
鈥渕ay refuse to create a new specialty license plate鈥 for a
number of reasons, for example 鈥渋f the design might be
offensive to any member of the public . . . or for any other
reason established by rule.鈥 Tex. Transp. Code Ann.
搂504.801(c). Specialty plates that the Board has sanc-
tioned through this process include plates featuring the
words 鈥淭he Gator Nation,鈥 together with the Florida
Gators logo, and plates featuring the logo of Rotary Inter-
national and the words 鈥淪ERVICE ABOVE SELF.鈥
B
In 2009, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Texas Divi-
sion (a nonprofit entity), applied to sponsor a specialty
license plate through this last-mentioned process. SCV鈥檚
application included a draft plate design. See Appendix,
infra. At the bottom of the proposed plate were the words
4 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
鈥淪ONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS.鈥 At the side
was the organization鈥檚 logo, a square Confederate battle
flag framed by the words 鈥淪ons of Confederate Veterans
1896.鈥 A faint Confederate battle flag appeared in the back-
ground on the lower portion of the plate. Additionally,
in the middle of the plate was the license plate number,
and at the top was the State鈥檚 name and silhouette. The
Board鈥檚 predecessor denied this application.
In 2010, SCV renewed its application before the Board.
The Board invited public comment on its website and at
an open meeting. After considering the responses, includ-
ing a number of letters sent by elected officials who op-
posed the proposal, the Board voted unanimously against
issuing the plate. The Board explained that it had found
鈥渋t necessary to deny th[e] plate design application, specif-
ically the confederate flag portion of the design, because
public comments ha[d] shown that many members of the
general public find the design offensive, and because such
comments are reasonable.鈥 App. 64. The Board added
鈥渢hat a significant portion of the public associate the con-
federate flag with organizations advocating expressions of
hate directed toward people or groups that is demeaning
to those people or groups.鈥 Id., at 65.
In 2012, SCV and two of its officers (collectively SCV)
brought this lawsuit against the chairman and members
of the Board (collectively Board). SCV argued that the
Board鈥檚 decision violated the Free Speech Clause of the
First Amendment, and it sought an injunction requiring
the Board to approve the proposed plate design. The
District Court entered judgment for the Board. A divided
panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re-
versed. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., v.
Vandergriff, 759 F. 3d 388 (2014). It held that Texas鈥檚
specialty license plate designs are private speech and that
the Board, in refusing to approve SCV鈥檚 design, engaged in
constitutionally forbidden viewpoint discrimination. The
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5
Opinion of the Court
dissenting judge argued that Texas鈥檚 specialty license
plate designs are government speech, the content of which
the State is free to control.
We granted the Board鈥檚 petition for certiorari, and we
now reverse.
II
When government speaks, it is not barred by the Free
Speech Clause from determining the content of what it
says. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460,
467鈥468 (2009). That freedom in part reflects the fact
that it is the democratic electoral process that first and
foremost provides a check on government speech. See
Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth,
529 U. S. 217, 235 (2000). Thus, government statements
(and government actions and programs that take the form
of speech) do not normally trigger the First Amendment
rules designed to protect the marketplace of ideas. See
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn., 544 U. S. 550, 559
(2005). Instead, the Free Speech Clause helps produce
informed opinions among members of the public, who are
then able to influence the choices of a government that,
through words and deeds, will reflect its electoral man-
date. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369
(1931) (observing that 鈥渙ur constitutional system鈥 seeks to
maintain 鈥渢he opportunity for free political discussion to
the end that government may be responsive to the will of
the people鈥).
Were the Free Speech Clause interpreted otherwise,
government would not work. How could a city government
create a successful recycling program if officials, when
writing householders asking them to recycle cans and
bottles, had to include in the letter a long plea from the
local trash disposal enterprise demanding the contrary?
How could a state government effectively develop pro-
grams designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if
6 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
officials also had to voice the perspective of those who
oppose this type of immunization? 鈥淸I]t is not easy to
imagine how government could function if it lacked th[e]
freedom鈥 to select the messages it wishes to convey.
Summum, supra, at 468.
We have therefore refused 鈥淸t]o hold that the Govern-
ment unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of
viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to
advance certain permissible goals, because the program in
advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative
goals.鈥 Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 194 (1991). We
have pointed out that a contrary holding 鈥渨ould render
numerous Government programs constitutionally sus-
pect.鈥 Ibid. Cf. Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1, 12鈥
13 (1990) (鈥淚f every citizen were to have a right to insist
that no one paid by public funds express a view with
which he disagreed, debate over issues of great concern to
the public would be limited to those in the private sector,
and the process of government as we know it radically
transformed鈥). And we have made clear that 鈥渢he govern-
ment can speak for itself.鈥 Southworth, supra, at 229.
That is not to say that a government鈥檚 ability to express
itself is without restriction. Constitutional and statutory
provisions outside of the Free Speech Clause may limit
government speech. Summum, supra, at 468. And the
Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government鈥檚
speech if, for example, the government seeks to compel
private persons to convey the government鈥檚 speech. But,
as a general matter, when the government speaks it is
entitled to promote a program, to espouse a policy, or to
take a position. In doing so, it represents its citizens and
it carries out its duties on their behalf.
III
In our view, specialty license plates issued pursuant to
Texas鈥檚 statutory scheme convey government speech. Our
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7
Opinion of the Court
reasoning rests primarily on our analysis in Summum, a
recent case that presented a similar problem. We con-
clude here, as we did there, that our precedents regarding
government speech (and not our precedents regarding
forums for private speech) provide the appropriate frame-
work through which to approach the case. See 555 U. S.,
at 464.
A
In Summum, we considered a religious organization鈥檚
request to erect in a 2.5-acre city park a monument setting
forth the organization鈥檚 religious tenets. See id., at 464鈥
465. In the park were 15 other permanent displays. Id.,
at 464. At least 11 of these鈥攊ncluding a wishing well, a
September 11 monument, a historic granary, the city鈥檚
first fire station, and a Ten Commandments monument鈥
had been donated to the city by private entities. Id., at
464鈥465. The religious organization argued that the Free
Speech Clause required the city to display the organiza-
tion鈥檚 proposed monument because, by accepting a broad
range of permanent exhibitions at the park, the city had
created a forum for private speech in the form of monu-
ments. Brief for Respondent in Pleasant Grove City v.
Summum, O. T. 2008, No. 07鈥665, pp. 2鈥3, 30鈥36.
This Court rejected the organization鈥檚 argument. We
held that the city had not 鈥減rovid[ed] a forum for private
speech鈥 with respect to monuments. Summum, 555 U. S.,
at 470. Rather, the city, even when 鈥渁ccepting a privately
donated monument and placing it on city property,鈥 had
鈥渆ngage[d] in expressive conduct.鈥 Id., at 476. The speech
at issue, this Court decided, was 鈥渂est viewed as a form of
government speech鈥 and 鈥渢herefore [was] not subject to
scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.鈥 Id., at 464.
We based our conclusion on several factors. First, his-
tory shows that 鈥淸g]overnments have long used monuments
to speak to the public.鈥 Id., at 470. Thus, we observed
8 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
that 鈥淸w]hen a government entity arranges for the con-
struction of a monument, it does so because it wishes to
convey some thought or instill some feeling in those who
see the structure.鈥 Ibid.
Second, we noted that it 鈥渋s not common for property
owners to open up their property for the installation of
permanent monuments that convey a message with which
they do not wish to be associated.鈥 Id., at 471. As a re-
sult, 鈥減ersons who observe donated monuments routine-
ly鈥攁nd reasonably鈥攊nterpret them as conveying some
message on the property owner鈥檚 behalf.鈥 Ibid. And 鈥渙b-
servers鈥 of such monuments, as a consequence, ordinarily
鈥渁ppreciate the identity of the speaker.鈥 Ibid.
Third, we found relevant the fact that the city main-
tained control over the selection of monuments. We
thought it 鈥渇air to say that throughout our Nation鈥檚 his-
tory, the general government practice with respect to do-
nated monuments has been one of selective receptivity.鈥
Ibid. And we observed that the city government in Sum-
mum 鈥 鈥榚ffectively controlled鈥 the messages sent by the
monuments in the [p]ark by exercising 鈥榝inal approval
authority鈥 over their selection.鈥 Id., at 473.
In light of these and a few other relevant considerations,
the Court concluded that the expression at issue was
government speech. See id., at 470鈥472. And, in reaching
that conclusion, the Court rejected the premise that the
involvement of private parties in designing the monu-
ments was sufficient to prevent the government from
controlling which monuments it placed in its own public
park. See id., at 470鈥471. Cf. Rust, supra, at 192鈥196
(upholding a federal regulation limiting speech in a
Government-funded program where the program was
established and administered by private parties).
B
Our analysis in Summum leads us to the conclusion
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9
Opinion of the Court
that here, too, government speech is at issue. First, the
history of license plates shows that, insofar as license
plates have conveyed more than state names and vehicle
identification numbers, they long have communicated
messages from the States. Cf. 555 U. S., at 470 (鈥淕overn-
ments have long used monuments to speak to the public鈥).
In 1917, Arizona became the first State to display a graphic
on its plates. J. Fox, License Plates of the United States
15 (1997) (Fox); J. Minard & T. Stentiford, A Moving
History 56 (2004) (Minard). The State presented a depic-
tion of the head of a Hereford steer. Fox 15; Minard 56.
In the years since, New Hampshire plates have featured
the profile of the 鈥淥ld Man of the Mountain,鈥 Massachu-
setts plates have included a representation of the Com-
monwealth鈥檚 famous codfish, and Wyoming plates have
displayed a rider atop a bucking bronco. Minard 60, 61,
66.
In 1928, Idaho became the first State to include a slogan
on its plates. The 1928 Idaho plate proclaimed 鈥淚daho
Potatoes鈥 and featured an illustration of a brown potato,
onto which the license plate number was superimposed in
green. Id., at 61. The brown potato did not catch on, but
slogans on license plates did. Over the years, state plates
have included the phrases 鈥淣orth to the Future鈥 (Alaska),
鈥淜eep Florida Green鈥 (Florida), 鈥淗oosier Hospitality鈥
(Indiana), 鈥淭he Iodine Products State鈥 (South Carolina),
鈥淕reen Mountains鈥 (Vermont), and 鈥淎merica鈥檚 Dairyland鈥
(Wisconsin). Fox 13, 29, 39, 91, 101, 109. States have
used license plate slogans to urge action, to promote tour-
ism, and to tout local industries.
Texas, too, has selected various messages to communi-
cate through its license plate designs. By 1919, Texas had
begun to display the Lone Star emblem on its plates.
Texas Department of Transportation, The History of
Texas License Plates 9, 11 (1999). In 1936, the State鈥檚
general-issue plates featured the first slogan on Texas
10 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
license plates: the word 鈥淐entennial.鈥 Id., at 20. In 1968,
Texas plates promoted a San Antonio event by including
the phrase 鈥淗emisfair 68.鈥 Id., at 46. In 1977, Texas
replaced the Lone Star with a small silhouette of the
State. Id., at 63. And in 1995, Texas plates celebrated
鈥150 Years of Statehood.鈥 Id., at 101. Additionally, the
Texas Legislature has specifically authorized specialty
plate designs stating, among other things, 鈥淩ead to Suc-
ceed,鈥 鈥淗ouston Livestock Show and Rodeo,鈥 鈥淭exans
Conquer Cancer,鈥 and 鈥淕irl Scouts.鈥 Tex. Transp. Code
Ann. 搂搂504.607, 504.613, 504.620, 504.622. This kind of
state speech has appeared on Texas plates for decades.
Second, Texas license plate designs 鈥渁re often closely
identified in the public mind with the [State].鈥 Summum,
supra, at 472. Each Texas license plate is a government
article serving the governmental purposes of vehicle regis-
tration and identification. The governmental nature of the
plates is clear from their faces: The State places the name
鈥淭EXAS鈥 in large letters at the top of every plate. More-
over, the State requires Texas vehicle owners to display
license plates, and every Texas license plate is issued by
the State. See 搂504.943. Texas also owns the designs on
its license plates, including the designs that Texas adopts
on the basis of proposals made by private individuals and
organizations. See 搂504.002(3). And Texas dictates the
manner in which drivers may dispose of unused plates.
See 搂504.901(c). See also 搂504.008(g) (requiring that
vehicle owners return unused specialty plates to the
State).
Texas license plates are, essentially, government IDs.
And issuers of ID 鈥渢ypically do not permit鈥 the placement
on their IDs of 鈥渕essage[s] with which they do not wish to
be associated.鈥 Summum, 555 U. S., at 471. Consequently,
鈥減ersons who observe鈥 designs on IDs 鈥渞outinely鈥攁nd
reasonably鈥攊nterpret them as conveying some message
on the [issuer鈥檚] behalf.鈥 Ibid.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 11
Opinion of the Court
Indeed, a person who displays a message on a Texas
license plate likely intends to convey to the public that the
State has endorsed that message. If not, the individual
could simply display the message in question in larger
letters on a bumper sticker right next to the plate. But
the individual prefers a license plate design to the purely
private speech expressed through bumper stickers. That
may well be because Texas鈥檚 license plate designs convey
government agreement with the message displayed.
Third, Texas maintains direct control over the messages
conveyed on its specialty plates. Texas law provides that
the State 鈥渉as sole control over the design, typeface, color,
and alphanumeric pattern for all license plates.鈥
搂504.005. The Board must approve every specialty plate
design proposal before the design can appear on a Texas
plate. 43 Tex. Admin. Code 搂搂217.45(i)(7)鈥(8), 217.52(b).
And the Board and its predecessor have actively exercised
this authority. Texas asserts, and SCV concedes, that the
State has rejected at least a dozen proposed designs.
Reply Brief 10; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49鈥51. Accordingly, like
the city government in Summum, Texas 鈥渉as 鈥榚ffectively
controlled鈥 the messages [conveyed] by exercising 鈥榝inal
approval authority鈥 over their selection.鈥 555 U. S., at 473
(quoting Johanns, 544 U. S., at 560鈥561).
This final approval authority allows Texas to choose
how to present itself and its constituency. Thus, Texas
offers plates celebrating the many educational institutions
attended by its citizens. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann.
搂504.615. But it need not issue plates deriding schooling.
Texas offers plates that pay tribute to the Texas citrus
industry. See 搂504.626. But it need not issue plates
praising Florida鈥檚 oranges as far better. And Texas offers
plates that say 鈥淔ight Terrorism.鈥 See 搂504.647. But it
need not issue plates promoting al Qaeda.
These considerations, taken together, convince us that
the specialty plates here in question are similar enough to
12 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
the monuments in Summum to call for the same result.
That is not to say that every element of our discussion in
Summum is relevant here. For instance, in Summum we
emphasized that monuments were 鈥減ermanent鈥 and we
observed that 鈥減ublic parks can accommodate only a lim-
ited number of permanent monuments.鈥 555 U. S., at 464,
470, 478. We believed that the speech at issue was gov-
ernment speech rather than private speech in part be-
cause we found it 鈥渉ard to imagine how a public park
could be opened up for the installation of permanent mon-
uments by every person or group wishing to engage in that
form of expression.鈥 Id., at 479. Here, a State could theo-
retically offer a much larger number of license plate de-
signs, and those designs need not be available for time
immemorial.
But those characteristics of the speech at issue in Sum-
mum were particularly important because the government
speech at issue occurred in public parks, which are tradi-
tional public forums for 鈥渢he delivery of speeches and the
holding of marches and demonstrations鈥 by private citi-
zens. Id., at 478. By contrast, license plates are not tradi-
tional public forums for private speech.
And other features of the designs on Texas鈥檚 specialty
license plates indicate that the message conveyed by those
designs is conveyed on behalf of the government. Texas,
through its Board, selects each design featured on the
State鈥檚 specialty license plates. Texas presents these
designs on government-mandated, government-controlled,
and government-issued IDs that have traditionally been
used as a medium for government speech. And it places
the designs directly below the large letters identifying
鈥淭EXAS鈥 as the issuer of the IDs. 鈥淭he [designs] that are
accepted, therefore, are meant to convey and have the
effect of conveying a government message, and they thus
constitute government speech.鈥 Id., at 472.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 13
Opinion of the Court
C
SCV believes that Texas鈥檚 specialty license plate designs
are not government speech, at least with respect to the
designs (comprising slogans and graphics) that were ini-
tially proposed by private parties. According to SCV, the
State does not engage in expressive activity through such
slogans and graphics, but rather provides a forum for
private speech by making license plates available to dis-
play the private parties鈥 designs. We cannot agree.
We have previously used what we have called 鈥渇orum
analysis鈥 to evaluate government restrictions on purely
private speech that occurs on government property. Cor-
nelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473
U. S. 788, 800 (1985). But forum analysis is misplaced
here. Because the State is speaking on its own behalf, the
First Amendment strictures that attend the various types
of government-established forums do not apply.
The parties agree that Texas鈥檚 specialty license plates
are not a 鈥渢raditional public forum,鈥 such as a street or a
park, 鈥渨hich 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.鈥 Perry Ed. Assn.
v. Perry Local Educators鈥 Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 45鈥46 (1983)
(internal quotation marks omitted). 鈥淭he Court has re-
jected the view that traditional public forum status ex-
tends beyond its historic confines.鈥 Arkansas Ed. Televi-
sion Comm鈥檔 v. Forbes, 523 U. S. 666, 678 (1998). And
state-issued specialty license plates lie far beyond those
confines.
It is equally clear that Texas鈥檚 specialty plates are nei-
ther a 鈥 鈥榙esignated public forum,鈥 鈥 which exists where
鈥済overnment property that has not traditionally been
regarded as a public forum is intentionally opened up for
that purpose,鈥 Summum, supra, at 469, nor a 鈥渓imited
public forum,鈥 which exists where a government has
14 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
鈥渞eserv[ed a forum] for certain groups or for the discussion
of certain topics,鈥 Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of
Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829 (1995). A government
鈥渄oes not create a public forum by inaction or by permit-
ting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a
nontraditional forum for public discourse.鈥 Cornelius, 473
U. S., at 802. And in order 鈥渢o ascertain whether [a gov-
ernment] intended to designate a place not traditionally
open to assembly and debate as a public forum,鈥 this Court
鈥渉as looked to the policy and practice of the government鈥
and to 鈥渢he nature of the property and its compatibility
with expressive activity.鈥 Ibid.
Texas鈥檚 policies and the nature of its license plates
indicate that the State did not intend its specialty license
plates to serve as either a designated public forum or a
limited public forum. First, the State exercises final au-
thority over each specialty license plate design. This
authority militates against a determination that Texas
has created a public forum. See id., at 803鈥804 (explain-
ing that a school mail system was not a public forum
because 鈥淸t]he practice was to require permission from the
individual school principal before access to the system to
communicate with teachers was granted鈥). Second, Texas
takes ownership of each specialty plate design, making it
particularly untenable that the State intended specialty
plates to serve as a forum for public discourse. Finally,
Texas license plates have traditionally been used for
government speech, are primarily used as a form of gov-
ernment ID, and bear the State鈥檚 name. These features of
Texas license plates indicate that Texas explicitly associ-
ates itself with the speech on its plates.
For similar reasons, we conclude that Texas鈥檚 specialty
license plates are not a 鈥渘onpublic for[um],鈥 which exists
鈥淸w]here the government is acting as a proprietor, manag-
ing its internal operations.鈥 International Soc. for Krishna
Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U. S. 672, 678鈥679 (1992).
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 15
Opinion of the Court
With respect to specialty license plate designs, Texas is
not simply managing government property, but instead is
engaging in expressive conduct. As we have described, we
reach this conclusion based on the historical context,
observers鈥 reasonable interpretation of the messages
conveyed by Texas specialty plates, and the effective
control that the State exerts over the design selection
process. Texas鈥檚 specialty license plate designs 鈥渁re meant
to convey and have the effect of conveying a government
message.鈥 Summum, 555 U. S., at 472. They 鈥渃onstitute
government speech.鈥 Ibid.
The fact that private parties take part in the design and
propagation of a message does not extinguish the govern-
mental nature of the message or transform the govern-
ment鈥檚 role into that of a mere forum-provider. In Sum-
mum, private entities 鈥渇inanced and donated monuments
that the government accept[ed] and display[ed] to the
public.鈥 Id., at 470鈥471. Here, similarly, private parties
propose designs that Texas may accept and display on its
license plates. In this case, as in Summum, the 鈥済overn-
ment entity may exercise [its] freedom to express its
views鈥 even 鈥渨hen it receives assistance from private
sources for the purpose of delivering a government-
controlled message.鈥 Id., at 468. And in this case, as in
Summum, forum analysis is inapposite. See id., at 480.
Of course, Texas allows many more license plate designs
than the city in Summum allowed monuments. But our
holding in Summum was not dependent on the precise
number of monuments found within the park. Indeed, we
indicated that the permanent displays in New York City鈥檚
Central Park also constitute government speech. See id.,
at 471鈥472. And an amicus brief had informed us that
there were, at the time, 52 such displays. See Brief for
City of New York in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum,
O. T. 2008, No. 07鈥665, p. 2. Further, there may well be
many more messages that Texas wishes to convey through
16 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
its license plates than there were messages that the city in
Summum wished to convey through its monuments.
Texas鈥檚 desire to communicate numerous messages does
not mean that the messages conveyed are not Texas鈥檚 own.
Additionally, the fact that Texas vehicle owners pay
annual fees in order to display specialty license plates
does not imply that the plate designs are merely a forum
for private speech. While some nonpublic forums provide
governments the opportunity to profit from speech, see,
e.g., Lehman v. Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298, 299 (1974)
(plurality opinion), the existence of government profit
alone is insufficient to trigger forum analysis. Thus, if the
city in Summum had established a rule that organizations
wishing to donate monuments must also pay fees to assist
in park maintenance, we do not believe that the result in
that case would have been any different. Here, too, we
think it sufficiently clear that Texas is speaking through
its specialty license plate designs, such that the existence
of annual fees does not convince us that the specialty
plates are a nonpublic forum.
Finally, we note that this case does not resemble other
cases in which we have identified a nonpublic forum. This
case is not like Perry Ed. Assn., where we found a school
district鈥檚 internal mail system to be a nonpublic forum for
private speech. See 460 U. S., at 48鈥49. There, it was
undisputed that a number of private organizations, includ-
ing a teachers鈥 union, had access to the mail system. See
id., at 39鈥40. It was therefore clear that private parties,
and not only the government, used the system to com-
municate. Here, by contrast, each specialty license plate
design is formally approved by and stamped with the
imprimatur of Texas.
Nor is this case like Lehman, where we found the adver-
tising space on city buses to be a nonpublic forum. See
R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 390, n. 6 (1992) (identi-
fying Lehman as a case about a nonpublic forum). There,
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 17
Opinion of the Court
the messages were located in a context (advertising space)
that is traditionally available for private speech. And the
advertising space, in contrast to license plates, bore no
indicia that the speech was owned or conveyed by the
government.
Nor is this case like Cornelius, where we determined
that a charitable fundraising program directed at federal
employees constituted a nonpublic forum. See 473 U. S.,
at 804鈥806. That forum lacked the kind of history present
here. The fundraising drive had never been a medium for
government speech. Instead, it was established 鈥渢o bring
order to [a] solicitation process鈥 which had previously
consisted of ad hoc solicitation by individual charitable
organizations. Id., at 792, 805. The drive 鈥渨as designed
to minimize . . . disruption to the [federal] workplace,鈥 id.,
at 805, not to communicate messages from the govern-
ment. Further, the charitable solicitations did not appear
on a government ID under the government鈥檚 name. In
contrast to the instant case, there was no reason for em-
ployees to 鈥渋nterpret [the solicitation] as conveying some
message on the [government鈥檚] behalf.鈥 Summum, 555
U. S., at 471.
IV
Our determination that Texas鈥檚 specialty license plate
designs are government speech does not mean that the
designs do not also implicate the free speech rights of
private persons. We have acknowledged that drivers who
display a State鈥檚 selected license plate designs convey the
messages communicated through those designs. See
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 717, n. 15, 715 (1977)
(observing that a vehicle 鈥渋s readily associated with its
operator鈥 and that drivers displaying license plates 鈥渦se
their private property as a 鈥榤obile billboard鈥 for the State鈥檚
ideological message鈥). And we have recognized that the
First Amendment stringently limits a State鈥檚 authority to
18 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
Opinion of the Court
compel a private party to express a view with which the
private party disagrees. See id., at 715; Hurley v. Irish-
American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston,
Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 573 (1995); West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v.
Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943). But here, compelled
private speech is not at issue. And just as Texas cannot
require SCV to convey 鈥渢he State鈥檚 ideological message,鈥
Wooley, supra, at 715, SCV cannot force Texas to include a
Confederate battle flag on its specialty license plates.
* * *
For the reasons stated, we hold that Texas鈥檚 specialty
license plate designs constitute government speech and
that Texas was consequently entitled to refuse to issue
plates featuring SCV鈥檚 proposed design. Accordingly, the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit is
Reversed.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 1
ALITO, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 14鈥144
_________________
JOHN WALKER, III, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF MOTOR VEHICLES BOARD, ET AL., PETITIONERS
v. TEXAS DIVISION, SONS OF CONFEDERATE
VETERANS, INC., ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[June 18, 2015]
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE
SCALIA, and JUSTICE KENNEDY join, dissenting.
The Court鈥檚 decision passes off private speech as gov-
ernment speech and, in doing so, establishes a precedent
that threatens private speech that government finds
displeasing. Under our First Amendment cases, the dis-
tinction between government speech and private speech is
critical. The First Amendment 鈥渄oes not regulate gov-
ernment speech,鈥 and therefore when government speaks,
it is free 鈥渢o select the views that it wants to express.鈥
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 467鈥468
(2009). By contrast, 鈥淸i]n the realm of private speech or
expression, government regulation may not favor one
speaker over another.鈥 Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors
of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828 (1995).
Unfortunately, the Court鈥檚 decision categorizes private
speech as government speech and thus strips it of all First
Amendment protection. The Court holds that all the
privately created messages on the many specialty plates
issued by the State of Texas convey a government message
rather than the message of the motorist displaying the
plate. Can this possibly be correct?
Here is a test. Suppose you sat by the side of a Texas
2 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
highway and studied the license plates on the vehicles
passing by. You would see, in addition to the standard
Texas plates, an impressive array of specialty plates.
(There are now more than 350 varieties.) You would likely
observe plates that honor numerous colleges and universi-
ties. You might see plates bearing the name of a high
school, a fraternity or sorority, the Masons, the Knights of
Columbus, the Daughters of the American Revolution, a
realty company, a favorite soft drink, a favorite burger
restaurant, and a favorite NASCAR driver.
As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would
you really think that the sentiments reflected in these
specialty plates are the views of the State of Texas and not
those of the owners of the cars? If a car with a plate that
says 鈥淩ather Be Golfing鈥 passed by at 8:30 am on a Mon-
day morning, would you think: 鈥淭his is the official policy
of the State鈥攂etter to golf than to work?鈥 If you did your
viewing at the start of the college football season and you
saw Texas plates with the names of the University of
Texas鈥檚 out-of-state competitors in upcoming games鈥
Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, the University of Okla-
homa, Kansas State, Iowa State鈥攚ould you assume that the
State of Texas was officially (and perhaps treasonously)
rooting for the Longhorns鈥 opponents? And when a car
zipped by with a plate that reads 鈥淣ASCAR 鈥 24 Jeff
Gordon,鈥 would you think that Gordon (born in California,
raised in Indiana, resides in North Carolina)1 is the official
favorite of the State government?
The Court says that all of these messages are govern-
ment speech. It is essential that government be able to
express its own viewpoint, the Court reminds us, because
otherwise, how would it promote its programs, like recy-
cling and vaccinations? Ante, at 5鈥6. So when Texas
issues a 鈥淩ather Be Golfing鈥 plate, but not a 鈥淩ather Be
鈥斺斺斺斺斺
1 Elliot, Shifting Gears, Forbes Life, Oct. 2013, pp. 55, 57.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 3
ALITO, J., dissenting
Playing Tennis鈥 or 鈥淩ather Be Bowling鈥 plate, it is fur-
thering a state policy to promote golf but not tennis or
bowling. And when Texas allows motorists to obtain a
Notre Dame license plate but not a University of South-
ern California plate, it is taking sides in that long-time
rivalry.
This capacious understanding of government speech
takes a large and painful bite out of the First Amendment.
Specialty plates may seem innocuous. They make motor-
ists happy, and they put money in a State鈥檚 coffers. But
the precedent this case sets is dangerous. While all li-
cense plates unquestionably contain some government
speech (e.g., the name of the State and the numbers and/or
letters identifying the vehicle), the State of Texas has
converted the remaining space on its specialty plates into
little mobile billboards on which motorists can display
their own messages. And what Texas did here was to
reject one of the messages that members of a private
group wanted to post on some of these little billboards be-
cause the State thought that many of its citizens would
find the message offensive. That is blatant viewpoint
discrimination.
If the State can do this with its little mobile billboards,
could it do the same with big, stationary billboards? Sup-
pose that a State erected electronic billboards along its
highways. Suppose that the State posted some govern-
ment messages on these billboards and then, to raise
money, allowed private entities and individuals to pur-
chase the right to post their own messages. And suppose
that the State allowed only those messages that it liked or
found not too controversial. Would that be constitutional?
What if a state college or university did the same thing
with a similar billboard or a campus bulletin board or
dorm list serve? What if it allowed private messages that
are consistent with prevailing views on campus but
banned those that disturbed some students or faculty?
4 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
Can there be any doubt that these examples of viewpoint
discrimination would violate the First Amendment? I
hope not, but the future uses of today鈥檚 precedent remain
to be seen.
I
A
Specialty plates like those involved in this case are a
recent development. License plates originated solely as a
means of identifying vehicles. In 1901, New York became
the first State to require automobiles to be licensed, but
rather than issue license plates itself, New York required
drivers to display their initials on their cars. J. Minard &
T. Stentiford, A Moving History 50 (2004). Two years
later, Massachusetts became the first State to issue li-
cense plates. The plates said 鈥淢ass. Automobile Register鈥
and displayed the vehicle鈥檚 registration number. Id., at
51. Plates of this type鈥攆eaturing a registration number,
the name of the State, and sometimes the date鈥攚ere the
standard for decades thereafter. See id., at 52鈥94; see also
generally, J. Fox, License Plates of the United States 10鈥
99 (1997).
Texas license plates initially followed this pattern.
When the first official state plate appeared in 1917, it
featured a number and the abbreviation 鈥淭EX.鈥 Texas
Department of Transportation, The History of Texas
License Plates 9 (1999) (History). In 1925, the year of
issue was added, and the State began issuing plates that
identified certain vehicle types, e.g., 鈥淐-M鈥 for commercial
trucks (1925), id., at 14鈥15; 鈥淔ARM鈥 for farm trucks
(1935), id., at 22; 鈥淥verwidth鈥 (1949), id., at 32; 鈥淗ouse
Trailer鈥 (1951), id., at 36. In 1936, a special plate with the
word 鈥淐ENTENNIAL鈥 was created to mark the State鈥檚
100th birthday, and the first plate identifying the owner
as a 鈥淪tate Official鈥 appeared two years later. Id., at 20,
25. Starting in the 1950鈥檚, Texas began issuing plates to
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 5
ALITO, J., dissenting
identify some other registrants, such as 鈥淎mateur Radio
Operator鈥 (1954), id., at 38, 鈥淪tate Judge鈥 (1970) id., at 64;
and 鈥淒isabled Veteran,鈥 (1972), id., at 79.
A sesquicentennial plate appeared in 1985, and two
years later, legislation was introduced to create a bronze
license plate with 14-karat gold-plated lettering, available
for a fee of $1,000. Id., at 81. The proposal aimed to make
the State a profit, but it failed to pass. Ibid.
It was not until 1989 that anything that might be con-
sidered a message was featured regularly on Texas plates.
The words 鈥淭he Lone Star State鈥 were added 鈥渁s a means
of bringing favorable recognition to Texas.鈥 Id., at 82.
Finally, in the late 1990鈥檚, license plates containing a
small variety of messages, selected by the State, became
available for the first time. Id., at 101. These messages
included slogans like 鈥淩ead to Succeed,鈥 鈥淜eep Texas
Beautiful,鈥 鈥淎nimal Friendly,鈥 鈥淏ig Bend National Park,鈥
鈥淗ouston Livestock Show and Rodeo,鈥 and 鈥淟one Star
Proud.鈥 Id., at 101, 113. Also issued in the 1990鈥檚 were
plates bearing the names of colleges and universities, and
some plates (e.g., 鈥淪tate of the Arts,鈥 鈥淪tate Capitol Resto-
ration鈥) were made available to raise funds for special
purposes. Id., 101.
Once the idea of specialty plates took hold, the number
of varieties quickly multiplied, and today, we are told,
Texas motorists can choose from more than 350 messages,
including many designs proposed by nonprofit groups or
by individuals and for-profit businesses through the State鈥檚
third-party vendor. Brief for Respondents at 2; see also
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, online at http://
www.txdmv.gov/motorists/license-plates/specialty-license-
plates (all Internet materials as visited June 12, 2015,
and available in Clerk of Court鈥檚 case file); http://
www.myplates.com.
Drivers can select plates advertising organizations and
causes like 4鈥揌, the Boy Scouts, the American Legion, Be
6 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
a Blood Donor, the Girl Scouts, Insure Texas Kids, Moth-
ers Against Drunk Driving, Marine Mammal Recovery,
Save Texas Ocelots, Share the Road, Texas Reads, Texas
Realtors (鈥淚 am a Texas Realtor鈥), the Texas State Rifle
Association (鈥淲WW.TSRA.COM鈥), the Texas Trophy
Hunters Association, the World Wildlife Fund, the YMCA,
and Young Lawyers.2
There are plates for fraternities and sororities and for
in-state schools, both public (like Texas A & M and Texas
Tech) and private (like Trinity University and Baylor). An
even larger number of schools from out-of-state are hon-
ored: Arizona State, Brigham Young, Florida State, Mich-
igan State, Alabama, and South Carolina, to name only a
few.
There are political slogans, like 鈥淐ome and Take It鈥 and
鈥淒on鈥檛 Tread on Me,鈥 and plates promoting the citrus
industry and the 鈥淐otton Boll.鈥 Commercial businesses
can have specialty plates, too. There are plates advertis-
ing Remax (鈥淕et It Sold with Remax鈥), Dr. Pepper (鈥淎l-
ways One of a Kind鈥), and Mighty Fine Burgers.
B
The Texas Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans
(SCV) is an organization composed of descendants of
Confederate soldiers. The group applied for a Texas spe-
cialty license plate in 2009 and again in 2010. Their
proposed design featured a controversial symbol, the
Confederate battle flag, surrounded by the words 鈥淪ons of
Confederate Veterans 1896鈥 and a gold border. App. 29.
The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (or Board)
invited public comments and considered the plate design
at a meeting in April 2011. At that meeting, one board
member was absent, and the remaining eight members
鈥斺斺斺斺斺
2 The Appendix, infra, reproduces the available specialty plates men-
tioned throughout this opinion in order of first reference. When catego-
ries are referenced, examples from the category have been included.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 7
ALITO, J., dissenting
deadlocked on whether to approve the plate. The Board
thus reconsidered the plate at its meeting in November
2011. This time, many opponents of the plate turned out
to voice objections. The Board then voted unanimously
against approval and issued an order stating:
鈥淭he Board has considered the information and
finds it necessary to deny this plate design applica-
tion, specifically the confederate flag portion of the de-
sign, because public comments have shown that many
members of the general public find the design offen-
sive, and because such comments are reasonable. The
Board finds that a significant portion of the public as-
sociate the confederate flag with organizations advo-
cating expressions of hate directed toward people or
groups that is demeaning to those people or groups.鈥
Id., at 64鈥65.
The Board also saw 鈥渁 compelling public interest in pro-
tecting a conspicuous mechanism for identification, such
as a license plate, from degrading into a possible public
safety issue.鈥 Id., at 65. And it thought that the public
interest required rejection of the plate design because the
controversy surrounding the plate was so great that 鈥渢he
design could distract or disturb some drivers to the point
of being unreasonably dangerous.鈥 Ibid.
At the same meeting, the Board approved a Buffalo
Soldiers plate design by a 5-to-3 vote. Proceeds from fees
paid by motorists who select that plate benefit the Buffalo
Soldier National Museum in Houston, which is 鈥渄edicated
primarily to preserving the legacy and honor of the Afri-
can American soldier.鈥 Buffalo Soldier National Museum,
online at http://www.buffalosoldiermuseum.com. 鈥淏uffalo
Soldiers鈥 is a nickname that was originally given to black
soldiers in the Army鈥檚 10th Cavalry Regiment, which was
formed after the Civil War, and the name was later used
to describe other black soldiers. W. Leckie & S. Leckie,
8 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
The Buffalo Soldiers: A Narrative of the Black Cavalry in
the West 21, 26鈥27 (2003). The original Buffalo Soldiers
fought with distinction in the Indian Wars, but the 鈥淏uf-
falo Soldiers鈥 plate was opposed by some Native Americans.
One leader commented that he felt 鈥 鈥榯he same way about
the Buffalo Soldiers鈥 鈥 as African-Americans felt about the
Confederate flag. Scharrer, Specialty License Plates can
Bring in Revenue, But Some Stir Up Controversy, Hous-
ton Chronicle, Nov. 26, 2011, P.B2. 鈥 鈥榃hen we see the
U. S. Cavalry uniform,鈥 鈥 he explained, 鈥 鈥榳e are forced to
relive an American holocaust.鈥 鈥 Ibid.
II
A
Relying almost entirely on one precedent鈥擯leasant
Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460鈥攖he Court holds
that messages that private groups succeed in placing on
Texas license plates are government messages. The Court
badly misunderstands Summum.
In Summum, a private group claimed the right to erect
a large stone monument in a small city park. Id., at 464.
The 2.5-acre park contained 15 permanent displays, 11 of
which had been donated by private parties. Ibid. The
central question concerned the nature of the municipal
government鈥檚 conduct when it accepted privately donated
monuments for placement in its park: Had the city created
a forum for private speech, or had it accepted donated
monuments that expressed a government message? We
held that the monuments represented government speech,
and we identified several important factors that led to this
conclusion.
First, governments have long used monuments as a
means of expressing a government message. As we put it,
鈥淸s]ince ancient times, kings, emperors, and other rulers
have erected statues of themselves to remind their sub-
jects of their authority and power.鈥 Id., at 470. Here in
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 9
ALITO, J., dissenting
the United States, important public monuments like the
Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and the
Lincoln Memorial, express principles that inspire and bind
the Nation together. Thus, long experience has led the
public to associate public monuments with government
speech.
Second, there is no history of landowners allowing their
property to be used by third parties as the site of large
permanent monuments that do not express messages that
the landowners wish to convey. See id., at 471. While 鈥淸a]
great many of the monuments that adorn the Nation鈥檚
public parks were financed with private funds or donated
by private parties,鈥 鈥渃ities and other jurisdictions take
some care in accepting donated monuments鈥 and select
those that 鈥渃onve[y] a government message.鈥 Id., at 471鈥
472. We were not presented in Summum with any exam-
ples of public parks that had been thrown open for private
groups or individuals to put up whatever monuments they
desired.
Third, spatial limitations played a prominent part in our
analysis. See id., at 478鈥479. 鈥淸P]ublic parks can accom-
modate only a limited number of permanent monuments,鈥
and consequently permanent monuments 鈥渕onopolize the
use of the land on which they stand and interfere perma-
nently with other uses of public space.鈥 Ibid. Because
only a limited number of monuments can be built in any
given space, governments do not allow their parks to be
cluttered with monuments that do not serve a government
purpose, a point well understood by those who visit parks
and view the monuments they contain.
These characteristics, which rendered public monu-
ments government speech in Summum, are not present in
Texas鈥檚 specialty plate program.
10 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
B
1
I begin with history. As we said in Summum, govern-
ments have used monuments since time immemorial to
express important government messages, and there is no
history of governments giving equal space to those wishing
to express dissenting views. In 1775, when a large gilded
equestrian statue of King George III dominated Bowling
Green, a small park in lower Manhattan,3 the colonial
governor surely would not have permitted the construction
on that land of a monument to the fallen at Lexington and
Concord. When the United States accepted the Third
French Republic鈥檚 gift of the Statue of Liberty in 1877, see
id., at 477, Congress, it seems safe to say, would not have
welcomed a gift of a Statue of Authoritarianism if one had
been offered by another country. Nor is it likely that the
National Park Service today would be receptive if private
groups, pointing to the Lincoln Memorial, the Martin
Luther King, Jr., Memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial on the National Mall, sought permission to put
up monuments to Jefferson Davis, Orval Faubus, or the
North Vietnamese Army. Governments have always used
public monuments to express a government message, and
members of the public understand this.
The history of messages on license plates is quite differ-
ent. After the beginning of motor vehicle registration in
1917, more than 70 years passed before the proliferation of
specialty plates in Texas. It was not until the 1990鈥檚 that
motorists were allowed to choose from among 10 messages,
such as 鈥淩ead to Succeed鈥 and 鈥淜eep Texas Beautiful.鈥
History at 101.
Up to this point, the words on the Texas plates can be
considered government speech. The messages were created
鈥斺斺斺斺斺
3 The Statue That Was Made Into Bullets, N. Y. Times Magazine,
July 21, 1901, at p.6.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 11
ALITO, J., dissenting
by the State, and they plausibly promoted state pro-
grams.4 But when, at some point within the last 20 years
or so, the State began to allow private entities to secure
plates conveying their own messages, Texas crossed the
line.
The contrast between the history of public monuments,
which have been used to convey government messages for
centuries, and the Texas license plate program could not
be starker.
In an attempt to gather historical support for its posi-
tion, the Court relies on plates with the mottos or symbols
of other States. As the Court notes, some of these were
issued well before 鈥淭he Lone Star State鈥 made its debut in
Texas in 1991. Id., at 82. But this history is irrelevant for
present purposes. Like the 1991 Texas plate, these out-of-
state plates were created by the States that issued them,
and motorists generally had no choice but to accept them.
For example, the State of New Hampshire made it a crime
to cover up the words 鈥淟ive Free or Die鈥 on its plates. See
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U. S. 705 (1977).
The words and symbols on plates of this sort were and
are government speech, but plates that are essentially
commissioned by private entities (at a cost that exceeds
$8,000) and that express a message chosen by those enti-
ties are very different鈥攁nd quite new. Unlike in Sum-
mum, history here does not suggest that the messages at
issue are government speech.
2
The Texas specialty plate program also does not exhibit
the 鈥渟elective receptivity鈥 present in Summum. To the
contrary, Texas鈥檚 program is not selective by design. The
Board鈥檚 chairman, who is charged with approving designs,
鈥斺斺斺斺斺
4 This opinion does not address whether the unique combination of
letters and/or numbers assigned to each vehicle, even when selected by
the motorist, is private speech.
12 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
explained that the program鈥檚 purpose is 鈥渢o encourage
private plates鈥 in order to 鈥済enerate additional revenue for
the state.鈥 Ibid., 58. And most of the time, the Board
鈥渂ase[s] [its] decisions on rules that primarily deal with
reflectivity and readability.鈥 Ibid. A Department bro-
chure explains: 鈥淨. Who provides the plate design? A.
You do, though your design is subject to reflectivity, legi-
bility, and design standards.鈥 Id., at 67.b.
Pressed to come up with any evidence that the State has
exercised 鈥渟elective receptivity,鈥 Texas (and the Court)
rely primarily on sketchy information not contained in the
record, specifically that the Board鈥檚 predecessor (might
have) rejected a 鈥減ro-life鈥 plate and perhaps others on the
ground that they contained messages that were offensive.
See ante, at 11 (citing Reply Brief 10 and Tr. of Oral Arg.
49鈥51). But even if this happened, it shows only that the
present case may not be the only one in which the State
has exercised viewpoint discrimination.
Texas鈥檚 only other (also extrarecord) evidence of selectiv-
ity concerns a proposed plate that was thought to create a
threat to the fair enforcement of the State鈥檚 motor
vehicle laws. Reply Brief 9鈥10 (citing publicly avail-
able Transcript of Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
Board Meeting, Aug. 9, 2012, p. 112, online at http://
www.txdmv.gov/reports-and-data/doc_download/450鈥2012鈥
tran-aug9). This proposed plate was a Texas DPS Troopers
Foundation (Troopers) plate, proposed in 2012. The Board
considered that proposed plate at an August 2012 meet-
ing, at which it approved six other plate designs without
discussion, but it rejected the Troopers plate in a dead-
locked vote due to apparent concern that the plate could
give the impression that those displaying it would receive
favored treatment from state troopers. Id., at 109鈥112.
The constitutionality of this Board action does not neces-
sarily turn on whether approval of this plate would have
made the message government speech. If, as I believe, the
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 13
ALITO, J., dissenting
Texas specialty plate program created a limited public
forum, private speech may be excluded if it is inconsistent
with the purpose of the forum. Rosenberger, 515 U. S., at
829.
Thus, even if Texas鈥檚 extrarecord information is taken
into account, the picture here is different from that in
Summum. Texas does not take care to approve only those
proposed plates that convey messages that the State
supports. Instead, it proclaims that it is open to all pri-
vate messages鈥攅xcept those, like the SCV plate, that
would offend some who viewed them.
The Court believes that messages on privately created
plates are government speech because motorists want a
seal of state approval for their messages and therefore
prefer plates over bumper stickers. Ante, at 10鈥11. This
is dangerous reasoning. There is a big difference between
government speech (that is, speech by the government in
furtherance of its programs) and governmental blessing
(or condemnation) of private speech. Many private speak-
ers in a forum would welcome a sign of government ap-
proval. But in the realm of private speech, government
regulation may not favor one viewpoint over another.
Rosenberger, supra, at 828.
3
A final factor that was important in Summum was
space. A park can accommodate only so many permanent
monuments. Often large and made of stone, monuments
can last for centuries and are difficult to move. License
plates, on the other hand, are small, light, mobile, and
designed to last for only a relatively brief time. The only
absolute limit on the number of specialty plates that a
State could issue is the number of registered vehicles. The
variety of available plates is limitless, too. Today Texas
offers more than 350 varieties. In 10 years, might it be
3,500?
14 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
In sum, the Texas specialty plate program has none
of the factors that were critical in Summum, and the
Texas program exhibits a very important characteristic
that was missing in that case: Individuals who want to
display a Texas specialty plate, instead of the standard
plate, must pay an increased annual registration fee.
See http://www.dmv.org/tx-texas/license-plates.php. How
many groups or individuals would clamor to pay $8,000
(the cost of the deposit required to create a new plate) in
order to broadcast the government鈥檚 message as opposed
to their own? And if Texas really wants to speak out in
support of, say, Iowa State University (but not the Univer-
sity of Iowa) or 鈥淵oung Lawyers鈥 (but not old ones), why
must it be paid to say things that it really wants to say?
The fees Texas collects pay for much more than merely the
administration of the program.
States have not adopted specialty license plate programs
like Texas鈥檚 because they are now bursting with things
they want to say on their license plates. Those programs
were adopted because they bring in money. Texas makes
public the revenue totals generated by its specialty
plate program, and it is apparent that the program
brings in many millions of dollars every year. See
http://www.txdmv.gov/reports-and-data/doc_download/5050鈥
specialty-plates-revenue-fy-1994-2014.
Texas has space available on millions of little mobile
billboards. And Texas, in effect, sells that space to those
who wish to use it to express a personal message鈥
provided only that the message does not express a view-
point that the State finds unacceptable. That is not gov-
ernment speech; it is the regulation of private speech.
III
What Texas has done by selling space on its license
plates is to create what we have called a limited public
forum. It has allowed state property (i.e., motor vehicle
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 15
ALITO, J., dissenting
license plates) to be used by private speakers according to
rules that the State prescribes. Cf. Good News Club v.
Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 106鈥107 (2001).
Under the First Amendment, however, those rules cannot
discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. See Rosenberger,
515 U. S., at 829 (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal
Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806 (1985)). But
that is exactly what Texas did here. The Board rejected
Texas SCV鈥檚 design, 鈥渟pecifically the confederate flag
portion of the design, because public comments have
shown that many members of the general public find the
design offensive, and because such comments are reason-
able.鈥 App. 64. These statements indisputably demon-
strate that the Board denied Texas SCV鈥檚 design because
of its viewpoint.
The Confederate battle flag is a controversial symbol.
To the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans, it is said to
evoke the memory of their ancestors and other soldiers
who fought for the South in the Civil War. See id., at 15鈥
16. To others, it symbolizes slavery, segregation, and
hatred. Whatever it means to motorists who display that
symbol and to those who see it, the flag expresses a view-
point. The Board rejected the plate design because it
concluded that many Texans would find the flag symbol
offensive. That was pure viewpoint discrimination.
If the Board鈥檚 candid explanation of its reason for reject-
ing the SCV plate were not alone sufficient to establish
this point, the Board鈥檚 approval of the Buffalo Soldiers
plate at the same meeting dispels any doubt. The propo-
nents of both the SCV and Buffalo Soldiers plates saw
them as honoring soldiers who served with bravery and
honor in the past. To the opponents of both plates, the
images on the plates evoked painful memories. The Board
rejected one plate and approved the other.
Like these two plates, many other specialty plates have
the potential to irritate and perhaps even infuriate those
16 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO, J., dissenting
who see them. Texas allows a plate with the words
鈥淐hoose Life,鈥 but the State of New York rejected such a
plate because the message 鈥 鈥榌is] so incredibly divisive,鈥 鈥
and the Second Circuit recently sustained that decision.
Children First Foundation, Inc. v. Fiala, ___ F. 3d ___, ___,
2015 WL 2444501
, *18 (CA2, May 22, 2015). Texas allows
a specialty plate honoring the Boy Scouts, but the group鈥檚
refusal to accept gay leaders angers some. Virginia, an-
other State with a proliferation of specialty plates, issues
plates for controversial organizations like the National
Rifle Association, controversial commercial enterprises
(raising tobacco and mining coal), controversial sports (fox
hunting), and a professional sports team with a controver-
sial name (the Washington Redskins). Allowing States to
reject specialty plates based on their potential to offend is
viewpoint discrimination.
The Board鈥檚 decision cannot be saved by its suggestion
that the plate, if allowed, 鈥渃ould distract or disturb some
drivers to the point of being unreasonably dangerous.鈥
App. 65. This rationale cannot withstand strict scrutiny.
Other States allow specialty plates with the Confederate
Battle Flag,5 and Texas has not pointed to evidence that
these plates have led to incidents of road rage or accidents.
Texas does not ban bumper stickers bearing the image of
the Confederate battle flag. Nor does it ban any of the
many other bumper stickers that convey political messages
and other messages that are capable of exciting the ire
of those who loathe the ideas they express. Cf. Good News
Club, supra, at 111鈥112.
* * *
Messages that are proposed by private parties and
placed on Texas specialty plates are private speech, not
鈥斺斺斺斺斺
5 See http://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#splates/category.asp?
category=SCITTexas
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 17
ALITO, J., dissenting
government speech. Texas cannot forbid private speech
based on its viewpoint. That is what it did here. Because
the Court approves this violation of the First Amendment,
I respectfully dissent.
18 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO
Appendix to, J., dissenting
opinion of ALITO, J.
APPENDIX
Sample Texas Specialty Plates
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 19
ALITO
Appendix to, J., dissenting
opinion of ALITO, J.
20 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO
Appendix to, J., dissenting
opinion of ALITO, J.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 21
ALITO
Appendix to, J., dissenting
opinion of ALITO, J.
22 WALKER v. TEXAS DIV., SONS OF
CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC.
ALITO
Appendix to, J., dissenting
opinion of ALITO, J.
Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015) 23
ALITO
Appendix to, J., dissenting
opinion of ALITO, J.
All found at http://txdmv.gov/motorists/license-
plates/specialty-license-plates