The U.S. Supreme Court may soon take up a case involving Leah Gilliam, a Tennessee woman whose personalized license plate — “69PWNDU” — was revoked by state officials in 2021 for allegedly carrying an inappropriate meaning.
Gilliam, who received approval for the plate in 2010, says it references the popular gaming term “pwned u” and that the “69” is connected to her phone number. However, the state argued the plate implied “sexual domination” and revoked it in May 2021, according to The Tennessean.
Related posts
Free Speech or Government Speech?
Gilliam challenged the revocation in the Tennessee Supreme Court, but the justices sided with state officials. The court ruled that personalized license plates fall under government speech, not private expression, meaning they are not protected by the First Amendment.
Gilliam’s legal team disagrees, warning that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent. They argue that if vanity plates are considered government speech, states could approve slogans favoring one political viewpoint while rejecting opposing ones, opening the door to viewpoint discrimination.
A Patchwork of Rules Across States
Gilliam’s attorneys highlighted major inconsistencies in vanity plate regulations nationwide:
-
A plate approved in Maryland, Oregon, Delaware, Rhode Island, Kentucky, California, and Michigan can be banned in Tennessee, Indiana, or Hawaii.
-
Texas blocked “JAIL 45,” targeting Donald Trump, while Michigan rejected “OSUSUCKS,” mocking football rivals.
-
Arizona approved “JESUSNM,” but Vermont rejected “JN36TN,” a shorthand for John 3:16.
These disparities, the lawyers argue, make First Amendment protections dependent on where drivers live.
Impact Beyond Vanity Plates
Tennessee currently has about 60,000 personalized plates, and nearly 1,000 applications have been rejected since 1998. Gilliam’s attorneys argue that license plates are personal messages from drivers, not the state, and the current ruling undermines free speech protections.
Organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the First Amendment Lawyers Association have backed Gilliam, stating:
“If the Tennessee court’s decision is allowed to stand, it will cause constitutional injuries reaching beyond the bumpers of vehicles registered in Tennessee.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case could have nationwide implications for free expression, government authority, and drivers’ rights.
This article has been carefully fact-checked by our editorial team to ensure accuracy and eliminate any misleading information. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity in our content.
