Faithandthelaw's Blog

The law as it relates to Christians and their free exercise of religion

2nd Circuit: Reference to John 3:16 on Vermont license plate is protected free speech

Posted by faithandthelaw on October 9, 2010

NEW YORK — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued a ruling Friday that strikes down a Vermont motor vehicles statute that prohibits personalized license plates with messages that refer to “religion” or “deity.” The court issued its ruling in the case of Shawn Byrne, whose application for a personalized plate with the letters and number “JN36TN”–a reference to the Bible verse John 3:16–was denied because it “refers to deity.” Alliance Defense Fund attorneys filed suit on Byrne’s behalf against Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles officials in 2005.

Although the DMV has approved applications for other plates that use names and numbers referring to a wide array of topics, including religion and secular belief systems, it denied Byrne’s application.

“Christians shouldn’t be censored from expressing their beliefs while others are freely allowed to express theirs,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman. “The 2nd Circuit rightly concluded that it’s unconstitutional for the government to decide that car owners can only identify who they are and what they believe on personalized plates if their identity and beliefs are non-religious.”

“There’s no reason whatsoever to single out a religious message for discrimination,” added ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “The DMV cannot send the message that religious speech is inferior to other speech by prohibiting personalized plates with Christian references while allowing other points of view. That’s classic viewpoint discrimination, which is unconstitutional.”

In April 2004, Byrne submitted his application for a specialty plate with references to the Bible verse John 3:16 as his choices. The following month, the DMV sent him a letter stating that the messaging on his application was “deemed to be a combination that refers to deity and has been denied based on that reason.” Byrne unsuccessfully appealed the denial, which an administrative law judge upheld based on a state statute that prohibits combinations referring to “deity.”

In its opinion, the 2nd Circuit said that U.S. Supreme Court guidance concerning bans on religious messages “has been both extensive and clear.” The court wrote, citing other cases in which ADF has had involvement, “We simply find…that Vermont’s ban on all religious messages in a forum it has otherwise broadly opened to comment on a wide variety of subjects, including personal philosophy, affiliation, and belief, serves not to restrict content but instead to discriminate against ‘a specific premise, [] perspective, [and] standpoint,’ and, as such, is impermissible.”

ADF attorneys appealed to the 2nd Circuit in October 2007. The court heard oral argument in Byrne v. Rutledge in December 2008. Anthony Duprey, one of more than 1,800 attorneys in the ADF alliance, is serving as local counsel in the case.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: