Wooley (appellant) v.
Maynard (appellee)
Case Summary
The State of New Hampshire required noncommercial vehicles to have
license plates with the motto, “Live Free or Die.” Maynard and his
wife were Jehovah’s Witnesses who considered the motto to be
against their moral, religious, and political beliefs. The U.S. Supreme
Court affirmed an order enjoining New Hampshire from arresting and
prosecuting the Maynards for altering their license plate.
Facts
• New Hampshire statutes require that noncommercial motor vehicles
bear license plates embossed with the state motto, "Live Free or
Die," and makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly obscure the motto.
• Appellees, Maynard and his wife, who are followers of the
Jehovah's Witnesses faith, view the motto as repugnant to their
moral, religious, and political beliefs, and accordingly they covered
up the motto on the license plates of their jointly owned family
automobiles.
• Appellee Maynard was subsequently found guilty in state court of
violating the misdemeanor statute on three separate charges, and,
upon refusing to pay the fines imposed, was sentenced to, and
served, 15 days in jail. Appellees then brought this action in Federal
District Court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against
enforcement of the New Hampshire statutes; a three-judge court
enjoined1 the State from arresting and prosecuting appellees in the
future for covering the motto on their license plates
1 Enjoin: prohibit someone from performing a particular action by issuing an injunction (authoritative warning or order; a judicial order restraining a person from beginning or continuing an action
• The threat of repeated prosecutions in the future against both appellees and the
effect of such a continuing threat on their ability to perform the ordinary tasks of
daily life that require an automobile, are sufficient to justify injunctive relief and
hence the district court was not limited to granting declaratory relief.
• The principles of equitable restraint do not preclude the district court from
exercising jurisdiction
• Maynard was cited for altering his New Hampshire license plate. He pled not guilty
to the charge and explained that the license plate motto is counter to his religious
beliefs. The judge found him guilty of the offense and imposed a fine of $25.
Maynard was cited again one month later for altering his license plate. He was
found guilty, fined $50, and sentenced to six months in jail. The court suspended
the jail sentence and ordered Maynard to pay $25 for the first fine. Maynard
refused to pay either fine on moral grounds. As a result, a court revoked the
suspended sentence and ordered Maynard to serve 15 days in jail. He was
subsequently charged with a third violation of the statute, but was not sentenced
to any additional time in jail.
• The district court held that when the Maynards covered up the
motto on their license plates, they were engaging in symbolic
speech that was constitutionally protected.
• D.C.: “New Hampshire’s interest in the enforcement of its
defacement statute is not sufficient to justify the restriction on
Maynard’s constitutionally protected expression.”
• The State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issue
W/N a state may constitutionally require an individual to participate in
the dissemination of an ideological message by requiring him to
display the message on his private property, and require him to do so
in a manner which would be observed and read by the public.
Decision
• No. The Court held that the State may not do so.
• The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to freedom of
thought is protected by the First Amendment, and includes the
right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking. These
concepts are inherently linked to the concept of “individual freedom
of mind,” and the First Amendment protects individuals who hold a
different view from the majority.
• The First Amendment of the United States Constitution
protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of
expression from government interference. It prohibits any laws
that establish a national religion, impede the free exercise of
religion, abridge the freedom of speech, infringe upon the
freedom of the press, interfere with the right to peaceably
assemble, or prohibit citizens from petitioning for a
governmental redress of grievances.
• It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Supreme Court interprets the
extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has
been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government
even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court
has interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as
protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state
governments.
• New Hampshire's statute in effect requires that appellees use
their private property as a "mobile billboard" for the State's
ideological message -- or suffer a penalty, as Maynard already has.
As a condition to driving an automobile -- a virtual necessity for
most Americans -- the Maynards must display "Live Free or Die" to
hundreds of people each day. The fact that most individuals agree
with the thrust of New Hampshire's motto is not the test since the
First Amendment protects the right of individuals to hold a point
of view different from the majority, and to refuse to foster, in the
way New Hampshire commands, an idea they find morally
objectionable.
• The statute, by forcing an individual, as part of his daily life—indeed,
constantly while his automobile is in public view—to be an
instrument for advocating public adherence to an ideological point
of view he finds unacceptable, “invades the sphere of intellect and
spirit which, it is the purpose of the First Amendment to reserve
from all official control.”
• The Court analyzed whether the state’s interests—(1) the easier
facilitation of the identification of vehicles, and (2) the promotion of
history, individualism, and state pride—are “sufficiently compelling”
to justify requiring the Maynards to display the motto on their
license plates.
- Under the identification of vehicles, “The breadth of legislative
abridgement must be viewed in the light of less drastic means
for achieving the same basic purpose”
- New Hampshire passenger license plates consist of a
specific configuration of letters and numbers which makes
them readily distinguishable from other types of plates
even without reference to the state motto
- Under the State’s second contention that it is for the promotion
of history, individualism and state pride, the Court said,
“However, where the State's interest is to disseminate an
ideology, no matter how acceptable to some, such interest
cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to
avoid becoming the courier for such message
• The Court rejected the argument for both of these interests, finding
that vehicles are identified by the letters and numbers displayed on
 the license plate, not by the motto. The purpose of the first interest
could be achieved by less drastic means, and the second interest
cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to avoid
becoming the courier for the State's ideological message.

• Even though the governmental purpose be legitimate and

substantial, that purpose cannot be pursued by means that broadly
stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be narrowly
achieved.

• So a state may not constitutionally require an individual to

participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by
requiring him to display the message on his private property, and
require him to do so in a manner which would be observed and read
by the public.

Notes
• Prior restraint - judicial suppression of material that would be
published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libellous or harmful
• When expression may be subject to any prior restraint
• pornography
• false or misleading advertisement
• advocacy of imminent lawless action
• danger to national security
• On the symbolic speech issue: “We find it unnecessary to pass on
the symbolic issue, since we find more appropriate First Amendment
grounds to affirm the judgment of the District Court.”