Wooley v. Maynard
430 U.S. 705 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state cannot constitutionally require individuals to use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for an ideological message they find morally, religiously, or politically objectionable, as this violates the First Amendment right to refrain from speaking.
Facts:
- Since 1969, New Hampshire law required noncommercial vehicles to bear license plates embossed with the state motto, 'Live Free or Die.'
- A separate state statute made it a misdemeanor to knowingly obscure the letters on a license plate, which included the motto.
- George and Maxine Maynard, followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, considered the motto repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs.
- The Maynards believed their ultimate allegiance was to 'Jehovah's Kingdom' and that life was more precious than freedom, making the motto contrary to their deeply held convictions.
- Beginning in early 1974, the Maynards began covering the motto on the license plates of their two family cars.
- On November 27, 1974, George Maynard was issued a citation for covering the motto.
- On December 28, 1974, Mr. Maynard was charged a second time for the same offense.
- On January 3, 1975, Mr. Maynard was charged with a third violation.
Procedural Posture:
- George Maynard was prosecuted three times in New Hampshire state district court for obscuring his license plate.
- He was convicted and, after refusing to pay the fines for his first two convictions, was sentenced to and served 15 days in jail.
- The Maynards filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking an injunction to prevent further prosecutions.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened and granted a permanent injunction against the State, prohibiting future arrests and prosecutions of the Maynards for this offense.
- The State of New Hampshire, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New Hampshire law requiring individuals to display the state motto 'Live Free or Die' on their license plates, and criminalizing the obscuring of that motto, violate the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the New Hampshire law violates the First Amendment. The freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment includes the right to refrain from speaking at all. By forcing individuals to display an ideological message on their private property, the state turns them into unwilling couriers for a message they find unacceptable, which 'invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment... to reserve from all official control.' The state's asserted interests in facilitating vehicle identification and promoting state pride are not sufficiently compelling to override an individual's fundamental right to avoid becoming an instrument for the state's ideology. Citing Board of Education v. Barnette, the court found that compelling the display of the motto is a degree of the same constitutional violation as compelling a flag salute.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
This opinion dissents in part, focusing only on the remedy. While a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional may be appropriate, issuing a permanent injunction against future prosecutions is not. The Court has historically held that federal courts should not restrain state criminal prosecutions except in 'exceptional circumstances' showing 'great and immediate' irreparable injury. The fact that Maynard was prosecuted three times before the law was declared unconstitutional does not rise to this level, as state officers were simply performing their duty under a then-valid law. The majority's willingness to grant an injunction erodes this established standard of federalism and equitable restraint.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, the law does not violate the First Amendment. The state has not forced the Maynards to 'say' or 'speak' anything. Displaying a state-mandated license plate does not imply the driver's personal affirmation of the motto, as any reasonable observer knows the message is from the state, not the individual. Unlike the active, personal affirmation in Board of Education v. Barnette, this case involves passive compliance with a vehicle registration requirement. The Maynards could easily disclaim the motto with a bumper sticker. The Court's logic could lead to absurd results, such as allowing an atheist to deface 'In God We Trust' on currency, which similarly involves no personal affirmation of belief.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision that firmly establishes the 'right not to speak' as a core component of First Amendment freedom of speech. It extends the principle of Board of Education v. Barnette from compelled symbolic acts to the compelled display of an ideological message on private property. The ruling creates a strong precedent against government efforts to compel individuals to serve as conduits for state-sponsored messages. It reinforces the idea that the government cannot force citizens to advertise an ideology, requiring a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored means to justify any such infringement.
