Choose Life Case Study

1. See also Roach v. Stouffer, 560 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2009).
a. Facts: Choose Life, a nonprofit, submitted an application for a “Choose Life” specialty license plate and fully complied with the requirements in the Missouri statute. Missouri State Senators, both pro-choice, sent a letter to the Chair of the Joint Committee opposing the specialty plates. Accordingly, the JC denied the application. CL argued that the JC’s denial violated its right to free speech, due process, and equal protection. The district court held that the specialty plates constituted private speech but that the statute lacked adequate guidelines to prevent viewpoint discrimination.
b. Issue: whether, under all the circumstances, a reasonable and fully informed observer

Analysis: The primary purpose of Missouri’s specialty plate program is to allow private organizations to promote their messages and raise money and to allow private individuals to support those organizations (by buying those specialty plates).
i. With more than 200 specialty plates available to car owners, a reasonable observer could not think that the State communicates all of those messages.
e. Notes: Applied test in White
2. See also Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Comm'r of the Va. Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 288 F.3d 610 (4th Cir. 2002).
a. Holding: (1) the speech on specialty license plates is private speech; (2) prohibiting the logo of SCV from appearing on the plate constituted viewpoint discrimination - did not survive strict scrutiny and was unconstitutional.
b. FOUR FACTOR TEST for determining if government speech or private speech: (quoting Wells, 257 F.3d at 1141): (1) the central “purpose” of the program in which the speech in question occurs; (2) the degree of “editorial control” exercised by the government or private entities over the content of the speech; (3) the identity of the “literal speaker;” and (4) whether the government or the private entity bears the “ultimate responsibility” for the content of the speech.
3. See also Ariz. Life Coal., Inc. v. Stanton, 515 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2008). ii. Government

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Tenn. v. Bredesen, 441 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 2006).
2. Facts: In 2003, the Tennessee legislature passed a law authorizing issuance of a “Choose Life” specialty license plate. Groups lobbied for an amendment authorizing a “pro-choice” specialty plate but they were defeated. ACLU filed a civil action challenging the act as facially unconstitutional. The district court held that the authorization of the “Choose Life” license plate was not purely government speech – it was mixed (private/government).
3. Issue: whether a government-crafted message disseminated by private volunteers creates a “forum” for speech that must be viewpoint neutral.
4. Holding: the government does not create a “forum” for expression when it seeks to have private entities disseminate its message.
5. Analysis: Government can express public policy views by enlisting private volunteers to disseminate its message, and there is no principle under which the First Amendment can be read to prohibit government from doing so because the views are particularly controversial or politically divisive.
6. While it is true that volunteers’ display of “Choose Life” plates expresses agreement with Tennessee that fact does not mean that a First Amendment “forum” for speech has been