Case Brief: US v. Conti
1. Citation: United States v. Conti,
E.D.S.C., Western Division,
No.5:11-CV-470-F (2012) 2. Facts:
In 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289, which approved the DMV to issue speciality license plates. One of these license plates was inscripted with the message “Choose Life.” The Plaintiffs, headed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, and the Defendants, Eugene Conti and Michael Robertson, who held State positions directly pertaining to transportation, are at court regarding the “Choose Life” plate. A percentage of the annual fee to have this plate on one’s car would go to the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, which is the official contact in the state for Choose Life, Inc. The funds obtained would not be allowed to be used in any way beneficial to abortion services. Various legislators proposed amendments to the bill to included a pro-choice plate, but all six attempts failed to pass. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit accusing the Defendants of creating a state-funded program that backs only one viewpoint of an issue, thus violating the rights of private speech found in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In the lower court, the presiding judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs in December 2011. The Defendants then appealed this decision to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which delivered its decision December 2012.
3. Issue:
Is the “Choose Life” license plate viewpoint discrimination, which is determined by whether the content is private speech or government speech?
4. Rule:
The rule used, as outlined by the presiding judge, is a control test from a case in the 4th Circuit, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Comm’r of the Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles:
(1) the central purpose of the program in which the speech in question occurs; (2) the degree of editorial control exercised by the government or private entities over the content of the speech; (3) the
E.D.S.C., Western Division,
No.5:11-CV-470-F (2012) 2. Facts:
In 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 289, which approved the DMV to issue speciality license plates. One of these license plates was inscripted with the message “Choose Life.” The Plaintiffs, headed by the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, and the Defendants, Eugene Conti and Michael Robertson, who held State positions directly pertaining to transportation, are at court regarding the “Choose Life” plate. A percentage of the annual fee to have this plate on one’s car would go to the Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship, which is the official contact in the state for Choose Life, Inc. The funds obtained would not be allowed to be used in any way beneficial to abortion services. Various legislators proposed amendments to the bill to included a pro-choice plate, but all six attempts failed to pass. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit accusing the Defendants of creating a state-funded program that backs only one viewpoint of an issue, thus violating the rights of private speech found in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. In the lower court, the presiding judge ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs in December 2011. The Defendants then appealed this decision to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, which delivered its decision December 2012.
3. Issue:
Is the “Choose Life” license plate viewpoint discrimination, which is determined by whether the content is private speech or government speech?
4. Rule:
The rule used, as outlined by the presiding judge, is a control test from a case in the 4th Circuit, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Comm’r of the Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles:
(1) the central purpose of the program in which the speech in question occurs; (2) the degree of editorial control exercised by the government or private entities over the content of the speech; (3) the