Facts
- New Hampshire required noncommercial vehicles to display license plates embossed with the motto “Live Free or Die” and made it a misdemeanor to obscure the motto.
- George Maynard and his wife, Jehovah’s Witnesses and co-owners of their family automobiles, viewed the motto as contrary to their moral, religious, and political beliefs.
- The Maynards covered the motto on their plates while leaving the numbers visible.
- Maynard was cited and convicted three times for violating the obscuring-the-motto statute.
- After refusing to pay the fines, Maynard served 15 days in jail.
- The Maynards sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future enforcement against them.
- A three-judge federal district court granted prospective relief and enjoined future arrests and prosecutions for covering the motto.
Issues
- Whether principles of equitable restraint associated with Younger v. Harris barred a federal court from enjoining threatened future state prosecutions.
- Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to require individuals to display an ideological motto on their privately owned vehicles and criminalize obscuring it.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the injunction.
- Younger-type restraint did not bar federal jurisdiction because the relief sought was wholly prospective and there was a genuine threat of repeated future prosecutions.
- New Hampshire could not constitutionally require individuals to disseminate the state’s ideological message by displaying the motto on their private property for public viewing.
- The state’s asserted interests (vehicle identification, state pride, and promotion of state ideals) did not justify compelling display of the motto when identification could be achieved without the ideological message.
Legal Principles
- The First Amendment protects both the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking.
- Government may not compel a private individual to use private property as a means to communicate an ideological message to the public.
- Prospective federal injunctive relief under § 1983 is available when there is a credible threat of repeated future prosecutions; failure to pursue state appellate review of prior convictions does not necessarily bar wholly prospective relief.
- State interests in administrative convenience or symbolic messaging cannot override a strong First Amendment interest in avoiding compelled ideological expression.
Conclusion
The Court held that New Hampshire violated the First Amendment by forcing motorists to display “Live Free or Die” on their license plates and upheld a federal injunction barring future prosecutions for covering the motto in response to a continuing threat of enforcement.