Dec. 16, 2025 – A car enthusiast who likes vanity plates to express his opinions recently lost his First Amendment claim on summary judgment before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The court in M J Nichols Company, Inc. v. Thompson, No. 24-cv-566-amb (W.D. Wis., Dec. 12, 2025), held that a license plate is government speech.

Whether the language on a license plate is individual expression or government speech to which the First Amendment doesn’t apply “is a close call,” Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor explained, “as illustrated by the split developing at the district court level, made all the more difficult because there is no clear guidance” in the Seventh Circuit.

Vanity Plates

Wisconsin law has allowed residents to buy “personalized registration plates” – commonly called vanity plates – since 1979.

Although the owner may choose the letters and numbers on the plate, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) reviews the applications.

WisDOT may deny an application that, under Wis. Stat. section 341.145(7), “may carry connotations offensive to good taste or decency, or which would be misleading, or in conflict with the issuance of any other registration plates.”

WisDOT’s “decision whether to issue a personalized plate is final and not subject to judicial review,” according to statute, but the agency’s process includes multiple steps.

If a trained staff member believes a requested plate text is objectionable, “the staff member puts a hold on the application” while the issue goes to the Title and Registration Processing Section (TARPS).

The TARPS team reviews the text against WisDOT criteria, including internal guidelines, before voting on whether to accept the application.

After this decision, the applicant may request review in writing to the TARPS section chief or a higher-ranking WisDOT manager.

Two Pontiac Firebird Trans Ams

Back in 2001, plaintiff Michael J. Nichols, operating through plaintiff M J Nichols Company, Inc., owned a Pontiac Firebird Trans Am with the license plate “RD RRAGE.” He had to give up the car in 2003 for reasons unrelated to the plate.

When Nichols acquired another Pontiac Firebird Trans Am in 2019, he applied to get his old plate back.

WisDOT denied the request and added the text “to its list of objectionable license plates.”

“Believing the denial of the application was a mistake, plaintiffs filed another application for the same personalized plate in December 2023.” WisDOT denied it.

Plaintiffs sued WisDOT Secretary Craig Thompson in August 2024, claiming that the statutory prohibition “may carry connotations offensive to good taste or decency” violated on its face the First Amendment “by restricting the applicant’s personal expression.”

Both plaintiffs and WisDOT sought summary judgment.

U.S. Supreme Court Guidance

Although the issue before the district court lacked clear authority, U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence on government speech provides the applicable test.

In Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), the district court explained, the Supreme Court created a three-factor test: (1) “whether governments have used [the medium] to speak to the public”; (2) “the general public’s perception of who” is speaking; and (3) “whether the government maintains control over the selection.”

In Pleasant Grove City, the Supreme Court analyzed whether monuments created by private citizens that were placed in a public park spoke for the individuals or the government. They spoke for the government.

The Supreme Court used the test to determine whether the state of Texas could deny a private nonprofit entity’s request for a specialty license plate featuring a Confederate flag.

In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. 200 (2015), the Supreme Court concluded that states often convey messages on license plates that people associate with the state. Texas could deny the request.

“A few courts have applied this jurisprudence to the personalized license plate programs of various states,” the district court explained, “and the resulting opinions are split.”

Vanity plates are private speech according to federal district courts in California, Delaware, Kentucky, and Rhode Island, and state courts in Maryland. They are government speech as held by the federal district court in Hawaii and state courts in Indiana and Tennessee.

Although the Seventh Circuit considered a First Amendment claim involving specialty plates in Choose Life Illinois, Inc. v. White, 547 F.3d 853 (7th Cir 2008), the district court noted the case framed the issue at odds with the later U.S. Supreme Court test.

The Choose Life court held the plates weren’t government speech, constituted a nonpublic forum, and the plate could be excluded as “a permissible and reasonable content-based restriction.”

Wisconsin’s License Plates

“Wisconsin’s state-issued license plates convey government information through their registration numbers and have done so since their inception” in 1905, the district court explained.

“The state stamps unique combinations of numbers and letters on every license plate to identify vehicles and link them to their owners.”

As the Walker court described it, such license plates are “essentially government IDs.”

If so, the plaintiffs argued, Wisconsin is “‘babbling prodigiously and incoherently’ through the thousands of disparate and potentially conflicting messages on personalized plates.”

Wisconsin-registered vanity plates include “GO PACK” and “GO BEARS.” That’s not a consistent message, the plaintiffs pointed out.

“[A]s a means of identifying and indexing cars,” however, it makes sense, the district court said.

Because people see so many license plates, the district court explained, it’s reasonable to conclude “that the public understands license plates and their registration numbers come from the state and convey governmental information.”

“[A] substantial number of Wisconsinites have firsthand knowledge of [WisDOT’s] role in reviewing, approving, and issuing personalized plates,” the district court said, referring to the number of personalized plates and applications noted in the record.

In 2024, Wisconsin had 239,413 issued personalized plates, and WisDOT reviewed 29,496 personalized plate applications – of which 1,166 were flagged for additional review and 694 denied.

The plaintiffs felt a personalized plate identifies a plate holder’s personal viewpoint because Wisconsin would never endorse the message “BEARS.”

The district court replied, “[a] reasonable person can understand that the state acquiesced to a resident’s request to identify their vehicle by the word ‘BEARS’ without also interpreting it as the sovereign State of Wisconsin’s official announcement of its favorite sports team.”

Finally, although an individual Wisconsin vanity plate doesn’t have the reach of a Texas specialty license plate design, the district court found paramount “the state’s oversight and its exercise of veto power.”

The court thus concluded that the license plate’s message is government speech for which the First Amendment doesn’t apply.