If you’re a licensed Georgia driver, you can get a state license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag.
But the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a Texas case that could have ripple effects for Southern states such as Georgia that allow the flag on state-issued specialty license plates.
At issue in Walker vs. Sons of Confederate Veterans is whether Texas was wrong to reject an effort by the organization to join the roster of entities offering specialty license plates through the state.
Texas rejected the bid four years ago after months of protests from groups who said the flag was a symbol of oppression. The Sons of Confederate Veterans argued that the state violated its right of free speech.
A lower appeals court ruling supported the organization. Now the Supreme Court essentially has to decide whether placing the emblem on a license plate is the state speaking or the voice of a private group.
During arguments today, some justices asked if allowing the flag on license plates would pave the way for more contentious and incendiary messages to be placed on the plates, according to the Associated Press. R. James George, Jr., a lawyer arguing for the organization, responded “I just don’t think the government can discriminate based on content.”
Texas solicitor general Scott A. Keller argued that the state had the right to refuse messages since it has “total control” over the manufacture and display of license plates, according to published reports.
So far, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The ACLU holds that though many people find the battle flag abhorrent because it, “was flown by those who defended slavery and sought to dissolve the Union,” the state of Texas still does not have the right to keep the emblem off license plates.
“Texas has many options available to it to address that problem, but censorship is not one of them,” according to the ACLU brief.
Return later for full coverage of the arguments made before the Supreme Court.
About the Author
