• Tennessee Supreme Court rules personalized license plates are not protected by the First Amendment. The court determined the state can revoke plates based on the message.
• The case began when Leah Gilliam’s plate, “69PWNDU,” was revoked after 11 years. 
• Gilliam’s attorneys plan to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

---

Full Story

The Tennessee Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, Feb. 26, that a personalized license plate is not protected under the First Amendment, striking down the claim of a woman whose custom plate was revoked.

Leah Gilliam’s lawsuit

The decision centers around Leah Gilliam, who filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Revenue after receiving a letter in 2021 stating her license plate “69PWNDU” was being revoked. Gilliam had held the plate since 2010.

The state argued the plate referenced sexual domination, while Gilliam contended the alphanumeric combination referred to her phone number and gaming hobby.

State argues personalized license plates are government speech

In court, state attorneys argued free speech does not apply to alphanumeric combinations on government issued license plates. They emphasized the First Amendment cannot apply to government speech.

The first judge sided with the state, but an appellate court overturned the decision, sending the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Tennessee Supreme Court decision

In their ruling, the justices noted, “Tennessee’s personalized license plates are government speech or private speech.”

They also said the First Amendment does not prevent the state from revoking Gilliam’s plate based on the content of its message.

They referenced a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Texas, where justices ruled specialty and personalized plates are government speech.

Gilliam’s attorneys plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing personalized license plates should be viewed as a statement from the car’s owner, not the government.