LEAH GILLIAM v. DAVID GERREGANO, COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ET AL. - Articles

All Content

LEAH GILLIAM v. DAVID GERREGANO, COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ET AL.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Feb 26, 2025

Court: TN Supreme Court

Attorneys 1: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; J. Matthew Rice, Solicitor General; and Joshua D. Minchin, Office of the Solicitor General Honors Fellow, for the appellants, the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue and the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter.

Attorneys 2: Daniel A. Horwitz, Lindsay Smith, Melissa K. Dix, Shannon C. Kerr, and David Hudson, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Leah Gilliam.

Attorneys 3: Lee Davis, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Adam Steinbaugh, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the amicus curiae, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

Attorneys 4: Edward M. Bearman, Memphis, Tennessee, and Clyde F. DeWitt III and Cathy E. Crosson, Las Vegas, Nevada, for the amicus curiae, First Amendment Lawyers Association.

Attorneys 5: Sarah L. Martin, Nashville, Tennessee, and Eugene Volokh, Los Angeles, California, for the amicus curiae, Simon Tam.

Judge(s): CAMPBELL

For over a decade, Leah Gilliam’s vehicle displayed a personalized license plate that read “69PWNDU.” The State eventually revoked the plate after deeming the message offensive. Gilliam sued state officials, alleging that Tennessee’s personalized license plate program discriminates based on viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment. The State argues that the First Amendment’s prohibition of viewpoint discrimination does not apply to the alphanumeric characters on Tennessee’s personalized license plates because they are government speech. In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that Texas’s specialty license plate designs were government speech. 576 U.S. 200, 213 (2015). Although personalized alphanumeric combinations differ from specialty plate designs in some respects, a faithful application of Walker’s reasoning compels the conclusion that they are government speech too. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ contrary holding and reinstate the trial court’s judgment in favor of the State.

Attachments: