Appeals court rules 'Choose Life' plates unconstitutional for North Carolina

[Redfairen]

Source: Charlotte Observer

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that North Carolina’s attempt to offer a “Choose Life” license plate and not offer an abortion-rights plate was unconstitutional.

.......

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 3-0 opinion written by Judge James Wynn of North Carolina.

“Chief amongst the evils the First Amendment prohibits are government ‘restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others,’” Wynn wrote, quoting an unrelated U.S. Supreme Court decision. “In this case, North Carolina seeks to do just that: privilege speech on one side of the hotly debated issue — reproductive choice — while silencing opposing voices.”

The license plates had never been offered, because U.S. District Court Judge James Fox in November 2011 temporarily blocked the law from going into effect. Then he ruled in December 2012 that the plates were unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.




Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/02/11/4683744/appeals-court-rules-choose-life.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Would they have allowed ...

"Choose leisurewear and matching luggage"?

[Control-Z]

2. Good!!

I'm glad the court was able to get that right.

[RiverNoord]

3. I hate to say it, but I think this call is wrong.

Viewpoint discrimination is a Constitutional issue when a party is prohibited by law or acts of officials from making a statement in favor of or against something. There's no prohibition here - if I wanted to, I could put a nice big bumper sticker saying 'Proudly pro-choice' right next to my standard issue license plate. States can choose to adopt positions on controversial issues without violating the Constitution, so long as no one is unlawfully harmed by the manner in which the position is adopted.

I'm very pro-choice, but I disagree with this one.

[Thor_MN]

4. One can put any bumper sticker they want on thier car. It's not a license plate.

The state producing a license plate is an endorsement of the message on the plate. The state can not endorse a singular stance on such a divisive viewpoint. To do so would be the prohibition. The notion that bumper stickers are equivalent to a license plate would get you pulled over in all 50 states. I wouldn't suggest trying to drive without a license plate.

[RiverNoord]

5. Why can't the state endorse a stance on a divisive issue?

Where does the U.S. Constitution state that, or even infer it? States endorse stances on divisive issues all the time - this one isn't discriminating against any of the traditional protected classes, it's not denying equal protection under the law to anyone, it's not on its face an entanglement with religion - and it's not banning any expression of alternate viewpoints concerning the same issue.

Just because it is possible to discern two distinct and polar opposite opinions in a policy debate doesn't mean that a State can't choose to endorse one, and invite its citizens to share in that endorsement. Just because I don't happen to agree with that position doesn't make it unconstitutional for the state to advance it.

I didn't say that bumper stickers are 'equivalent' to license plates for purposes of valid legal identification of a vehicle and its owner. I do, however, recognize that there is a lot more room on every car bumper that I've ever seen to make a point than there are on license plates.

[Thor_MN]

7. Because it can not subsidize the speach of one group, while quashing another.

You really need to address your questions to the multiple judges, they have all stated it is unconstitutional. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you are asserting. If the state had chosen to offer both pro and anti choice plates, there would be no debate. They didn't, leading to the prohibition that you don't believe exists (again, the judges didn't agree with you.)

If you really don't understand how you equivocated a message on a bumper sticker with a state sponsored message on a license plate, then I guess we aren't going to see eye to eye. I don't think your opinion is going to sway the courts much, but you have the right to voice it, thanks to the same amendment that says your opinion is wrong.

[Scairp]

6. Who cares

The actual right to seek an abortion is being seriously infringed upon and they waste time on license plates. Fucking unbelievable.

[davidpdx]

8. I have to agree

This is a "vanity" issue. It's nice they won, but would rather have had it on an actual case where abortion would be limited.

[warrant46]

9. Try driving without a plate late at night

Especially if its DWB

Sir, please walk heel to toe on this line and blow in this little thingy

Once they stop your car you are in Nazi Germany with no expectation of anything. (Like privacy and the 4th amendment)

Pass the tests oh well---

While you sit in the back of their car waiting for the donuts and the drug dog to be delivered

[malthaussen]

10. At first blush, I thought they blew that call...

... changed my mind reading some of the arguments upthread.

It would be interesting if they offered plates expressing both sides of the issue. The breakdown on who bought which might be instructive.

-- Mal

[Throd]

11. How about a unique set of numbers and letters on every plate and forget all that other bullshit?

I totally agree with this decision.