Wooley v. Maynard
Encyclopedia
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705
(1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
held that New Hampshire
could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates
when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.
." Another New Hampshire statute made it a misdemeanor "knowingly [to obscure] . . . the figures or letters on any number plate." The term "letters" in this section had been interpreted by the State's highest court
in State v. Hoskin to include the state motto.
faith, viewed the motto as repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs, and for this reason they covered up the motto on the license plates of their jointly owned family automobiles. On November 27, 1974, Maynard was issued a citation for violating the state statutes regarding obscuring of the state motto.
in Lebanon
District Court
to answer the charge. After waiving his right to counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to explain his religious objections to the motto. The state trial judge expressed sympathy for Maynard's situation, but considered himself bound by the authority of State v. Hoskin to hold Maynard guilty. A $25 fine was imposed, but was suspended during "good behavior."
On December 28, 1974, Maynard was again charged with violating 262:27-c. He appeared in court on January 31, 1975, and again chose to represent himself; he was found guilty, fined $50, and sentenced to six months in the Grafton County
House of Corrections. The court suspended this jail sentence but ordered Maynard to also pay the $25 fine for the first offense. Maynard informed the court that, as a matter of conscience, he refused to pay the two fines. The court thereupon sentenced him to jail for a period of 15 days. He served the full sentence.
Prior to trial on the second offense Maynard was charged with yet a third violation of 262:27-c on January 3, 1975. He appeared on this complaint on the same day as for the second offense, and was, again, found guilty. This conviction was "continued for sentence" so that Maynard received no punishment in addition to the 15 days.
On March 4, 1975, the Maynards sued in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
, seeking injunctive
and declaratory relief
against enforcement of N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 262:27-c, 263:1, insofar as these required displaying the state motto on their vehicle license plates, and made it a criminal offense to obscure the motto. On March 11, 1975, the single District Judge issued a temporary restraining order against further arrests and prosecutions of the Maynards. Because the appellees sought an injunction against a state statute on grounds of its unconstitutionality, a three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2281. Following a hearing on the merits, the District Court entered an order enjoining the State "from arresting and prosecuting [the Maynards] at any time in the future for covering over that portion of their license plates that contains the motto `Live Free or Die.'"
, writing for the Court, found that the statute in question effectively required individuals to "use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message." The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech principles under the First Amendment
, including "the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster. . .an idea they find morally objectionable." The state's interest in motor vehicle identification could be achieved by "less drastic means," and its interest in fostering state pride was not viewpoint-neutral.
wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Blackmun
joined. Rehnquist wrote that
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
held that New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America. The state was named after the southern English county of Hampshire. It is bordered by Massachusetts to the south, Vermont to the west, Maine and the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and the Canadian...
could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates
Vehicle registration plate
A vehicle registration plate is a metal or plastic plate attached to a motor vehicle or trailer for official identification purposes. The registration identifier is a numeric or alphanumeric code that uniquely identifies the vehicle within the issuing region's database...
when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.
Background
Since 1969 New Hampshire has required that noncommercial vehicles bear license plates embossed with the state motto, "Live Free or DieLive Free or Die
"Live Free or Die" is the official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, adopted by the state in 1945. It is possibly the best-known of all state mottos, partly because it speaks to an assertive independence historically found in American political philosophy and partly because of its contrast...
." Another New Hampshire statute made it a misdemeanor "knowingly [to obscure] . . . the figures or letters on any number plate." The term "letters" in this section had been interpreted by the State's highest court
New Hampshire Supreme Court
The New Hampshire Supreme Court is the supreme court of the U. S. state of New Hampshire and sole appellate court of the state. The Supreme Court is seated in the state capital, Concord. The Court is composed of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices appointed by the Governor and Executive...
in State v. Hoskin to include the state motto.
Facts of the case
George Maynard and his wife, followers of the Jehovah's WitnessesJehovah's Witnesses
Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. The religion reports worldwide membership of over 7 million adherents involved in evangelism, convention attendance of over 12 million, and annual...
faith, viewed the motto as repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs, and for this reason they covered up the motto on the license plates of their jointly owned family automobiles. On November 27, 1974, Maynard was issued a citation for violating the state statutes regarding obscuring of the state motto.
Prior history
On December 6, 1974, Maynard appeared pro sePro se legal representation in the United States
Pro se legal representation means advocating on one's own behalf before a court, rather than being represented by a lawyer. This may occur in any court proceeding, whether one is the defendant or plaintiff in civil cases, and when one is a defendant in criminal cases. Pro se is a Latin phrase...
in Lebanon
Lebanon, New Hampshire
As of the census of 2000, there were 12,568 people, 5,500 households, and 3,178 families residing in the city. The population density was 311.4 people per square mile . There were 5,707 housing units at an average density of 141.4 per square mile...
District Court
New Hampshire District Court
The New Hampshire Circuit Court District Division is the "community court" of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, made up of one circuit for each County and is located in 36 cities and towns. The District Division has jurisdiction over all juvenile matters, domestic violence cases, violation and...
to answer the charge. After waiving his right to counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to explain his religious objections to the motto. The state trial judge expressed sympathy for Maynard's situation, but considered himself bound by the authority of State v. Hoskin to hold Maynard guilty. A $25 fine was imposed, but was suspended during "good behavior."
On December 28, 1974, Maynard was again charged with violating 262:27-c. He appeared in court on January 31, 1975, and again chose to represent himself; he was found guilty, fined $50, and sentenced to six months in the Grafton County
Grafton County, New Hampshire
Grafton County is a county located in the U.S. state of New Hampshire. As of the 2010 census, the population was 89,118. Its county seat is North Haverhill, which is a village within the town of Haverhill. Until 1972, the county courthouse and other offices were located in downtown Woodsville, a...
House of Corrections. The court suspended this jail sentence but ordered Maynard to also pay the $25 fine for the first offense. Maynard informed the court that, as a matter of conscience, he refused to pay the two fines. The court thereupon sentenced him to jail for a period of 15 days. He served the full sentence.
Prior to trial on the second offense Maynard was charged with yet a third violation of 262:27-c on January 3, 1975. He appeared on this complaint on the same day as for the second offense, and was, again, found guilty. This conviction was "continued for sentence" so that Maynard received no punishment in addition to the 15 days.
On March 4, 1975, the Maynards sued in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the state of New Hampshire. The Warren B. Rudman U.S...
, seeking injunctive
Injunction
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions...
and declaratory relief
Declaratory relief
Declaratory relief is a judge's determination of the parties' rights under a contract or a statute, often requested in a lawsuit over a contract. In theory, an early resolution of legal rights will resolve some or all of the other issues in the matter....
against enforcement of N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 262:27-c, 263:1, insofar as these required displaying the state motto on their vehicle license plates, and made it a criminal offense to obscure the motto. On March 11, 1975, the single District Judge issued a temporary restraining order against further arrests and prosecutions of the Maynards. Because the appellees sought an injunction against a state statute on grounds of its unconstitutionality, a three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2281. Following a hearing on the merits, the District Court entered an order enjoining the State "from arresting and prosecuting [the Maynards] at any time in the future for covering over that portion of their license plates that contains the motto `Live Free or Die.'"
Decision of the court
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates. Chief Justice BurgerWarren E. Burger
Warren Earl Burger was the 15th Chief Justice of the United States from 1969 to 1986. Although Burger had conservative leanings, the U.S...
, writing for the Court, found that the statute in question effectively required individuals to "use their private property as a 'mobile billboard' for the State's ideological message." The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech principles under the First Amendment
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
, including "the right of individuals to hold a point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster. . .an idea they find morally objectionable." The state's interest in motor vehicle identification could be achieved by "less drastic means," and its interest in fostering state pride was not viewpoint-neutral.
Minority opinions
Justice RehnquistWilliam Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justice Blackmun
Harry Blackmun
Harold Andrew Blackmun was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 until 1994. He is best known as the author of Roe v. Wade.- Early years and professional career :...
joined. Rehnquist wrote that
For First Amendment principles to be implicated, the State must place the citizen in the position of either apparently or actually "asserting as true" the message. This was the focus of Barnette, and clearly distinguishes this case from that one.
In holding that the New Hampshire statute does not run afoul of our holding in Barnette, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ...aptly articulated why there is no required affirmation of belief in this case:
"The defendants' membership in a class of persons required to display plates bearing the State motto carries no implication and is subject to no requirement that they endorse that motto or profess to adopt it as matter of belief."
As found by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Hoskin, there is nothing in state law which precludes appellees from displaying their disagreement with the state motto as long as the methods used do not obscure the license plates. Thus appellees could place on their bumper a conspicuous bumper sticker explaining in no uncertain terms that they do not profess the motto "Live Free or Die" and that they violently disagree with the connotations of that motto. Since any implication that they affirm the motto can be so easily displaced, I cannot agree that the state statutory system for motor vehicle identification and tourist promotion may be invalidated under the fiction that appellees are unconstitutionally forced to affirm, or profess belief in, the state motto.
See also
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteWest Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteWest Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the...
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 430