This post originally appeared at https://will-law.org/nichols-v-thompson/
Case Name: Nichols v. Thompson
Type of Case: Individual Liberties & Preservation of Democracy
Court: United States District Court Western District of Wisconsin
Filed On: August 12, 2024
Current Status: Filed in United States District Court Western District of Wisconsin on August 12, 2024.
WILL Defends First Amendment Rights of Wisconsin Driver in New Lawsuit
August 9, 2024 | WILL is challenging a state law that unlawfully restricts Wisconsin drivers’ First Amendment rights. The state uses subjective and arbitrary decisions to decide what drivers can print on their personalized license plates.
The News: The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) is challenging a state law that unlawfully restricts Wisconsin drivers’ First Amendment rights. The state uses subjective and arbitrary decisions to decide what drivers can print on their personalized license plates.
Additional Background: Custom license plates are extremely popular in Wisconsin. As a car collector and enthusiast, Michael Nichols is one of the many citizens who like to obtain custom plates to express himself, his politics, and how he sees his cars.
Back in 2001, Nichols acquired a Pontiac Firebird Trans Am WS6 and obtained the personalized plate “RD RRAGE”. He maintained that plate until he returned the car due to a lemon law buyback in 2003.
Years passed, and Nichols was thrilled when he was able to acquire another Pontiac Firebird Trans Am WS6. He once again applied to get the personalized plate, “RD RRAGE” for the vehicle. However, this time the request was denied and Nichols subsequently found that the plate was listed as “objectionable” and therefore unlawful by state bureaucrats. State law explicitly forbids Wisconsinites from appealing any bureaucrats’ determination regarding their plates.
State law allows DOT bureaucrats the sole authority to deny a personalized license plate if the bureaucrat determines that a requested license plate “may carry connotations offensive to good taste or decency.” The law allows the state to restrict the speech of car owners based on the content of that speech, and as Nichols’ history shows—the state’s application of the statute is arbitrary and capricious.
WILL is asking the court to declare that state law’s prohibition on license plates “which may carry connotations offensive to good taste or decency” is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. State bureaucrats have no right to decide which messages are acceptable to display, and which are not.
Lucas Vebber
Deputy Counsel
lucas@will-law.org
NATHALIE BURMEISTER
Associate Counsel
Nathalie@will-law.org
The post Nichols V. Thompson appeared first on Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.
Pat Garrett