Yesterday, March 30th, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine signed Senate Bill 817, or the “Choose Life plate bill.” This bill created Choose Life license plates in Virginia, thus furthering the pro-life cause. Despite political ideology, Governor Kaine stated, “I signed this legislation today in keeping with the Commonwealth’s longtime practice of approving specialty plates with all manner of political and social messages.” To view an article regarding the bill signing, go to LifeNews.com.

To thank Governor Kaine for signing SB 817, go to AUL Action.

Chicago, IL — Today, in Roach v. Stouffer, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Missouri officials acted unconstitutionally when they denied a valid petition for a “Choose Life” license plate because of its pro-life viewpoint. The court also ordered the specialty plate be issued.

Dr. Charmaine Yoest, AUL President & CEO, stated, “It is encouraging that more and more states like Missouri are using ‘Choose Life’ license plates to support the positive and life-affirming work of pregnancy care centers. These centers and others offer pregnant women positive choices, genuine care, and support.”

Choose Life of Missouri, Inc. filed the constitutional challenge after it was denied the specialty plate, despite its affirmative compliance with all requirements of the state’s specialty license plate program.

AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith noted, “The court has sent a clear signal to Missouri and other states that a pro-life message on license plates cannot be censored merely because it is pro-life in nature. That kind of state action is clearly discriminatory and will not be tolerated.”

Currently, 19 states—including Missouri—have “Choose Life” license plate programs benefiting pregnancy care centers and other abortion alternatives.

AUL filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Choose Life of Missouri, Inc., representing the interests of 17 Missouri pregnancy care centers that stand to benefit from the proceeds of the plates. AUL’s brief is available at http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/RoachvVincent.pdf.

On January 7, 2009, the Arizona License Plate Commission unanimously approved the offering of “Choose Life” license plates to Arizona motorists.  The decision followed years of litigation, where it was determined that the Commission had acted unconstitutionally in originally denying a petition for the “Choose Life” plates.

When the petition filed by Arizona Life Coalition was denied six years ago, the group filed suit in the federal district court for Arizona.  Arizona Life Coalition had abided by all state requirements, but the Commission inappropriately denied the plate based upon its pro-life message.  However, the district court sided with the Commission, and the case proceeded to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit, however, quickly saw through the Commission’s unconstitutional actions and reversed the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of Arizona Life Coalition.  When the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Commission’s request to review the appeal, the lower court instructed the state of Arizona to issue the license plates.

AUL has been continually active in this case, Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton, as well as in other “Choose Life” cases.  In the Arizona case, AUL represented pregnancy care centers that stand to benefit from the funds derived from the “Choose Life” plates.  That amicus brief is available at http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ArizonaLifeCoalitionvStanton.pdf.

AUL has also filed amicus briefs supporting the plates in Missouri and Illinois.  The case in Missouri, Roach v. Vincent, is currently pending before the Eight Circuit.  The lower court has already ruled that the state acted unconstitutionally in denying the issuance of the plates.  AUL’s amicus brief, filed on behalf of pregnancy care centers in Missouri, is available at http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/RoachvVincent.pdf.

The Seventh Circuit, however, has diverged from the decisions in the Ninth Circuit and the Western District of Missouri, ruling instead that the state of Illinois has not acted unconstitutionally in denying the “Choose Life” license plates to its motorists.  Attorneys for Choose Life Illinois have stated that they plan to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.  AUL’s amicus brief in that case, Choose Life Illinois v. White, is available at http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ChooseLifeILvWhite.pdf.

By finally approving the plates on Wednesday, Arizona became the 18th state to offer the “Choose Life” license plates to its residents.  The other states offering the plates include Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

On Friday, November 7, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision in Choose Life Illinois v. White holding that the state of Illinois acted unconstitutionally when it denied Choose Life Illinois’ petition for a “Choose Life” license plate. This decision comes just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed to stand a Ninth Circuit decision declaring the same kind of state action unconstitutional.

Choose Life Illinois had complied with all of the requisite steps enumerated in state law for the application of a specialty plate—even collecting over 25,000 citizen signatures requesting the plate when it only needed to gather 800. Yet rather than granting the specialty plate as required under state law, Secretary of State White deferred to the state legislature—an action not indicated under the statute providing for specialty license plates. Because the state legislature did not enact legislation providing for the “Choose Life” plate, the Secretary of State denied the plate. Choose Life Illinois filed suit soon after.

The Northern District of Illinois saw through the ploy, labeling the state’s action in denying the plate as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The state thereafter appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

As in all “Choose Life” cases, one major aspect of the decision was whether license plate speech constitutes speech by the government, or private speech by individuals. As in a recent Ninth Circuit decision, the Seventh Circuit concluded that license plate speech constitutes private speech.

That conclusion should have led to a decision decrying the state’s actions as unconstitutional. The state of Illinois made clear that it denied the plate because it dealt with the abortion issue. The Ninth Circuit had labeled such action as clearly discriminatory—denying a plate simply because its message dealt with subject matter the state wanted to avoid. Moreover, other controversial plates are allowed in Illinois—such as plates with environmental messages and plates containing “peace birds.” Both the Ninth and Fourth Circuits have acknowledged that denying a plate because of its subject matter, while allowing other plates with what could be seen as controversial subject matter (regardless of whether those other messages even relate to abortion), is clearly unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Once the state opens the license plate forum for plates of any type of political issue or opinion, it cannot then deny plates based on an issue the state wants to avoid.

The Seventh Circuit’s decision boils down to this: because no abortion-related plates have been issued in the state of Illinois, the state’s action in denying a “Choose Life” plate was not unconstitutional. But the Seventh Circuit’s decision leaves open an easily foreseeable problem: What happens if the state legislature does enact legislation providing for an abortion-related plate? A shift in the demographics of the legislature could lead to a plate promoting either side of the abortion debate. What then of the Court’s decision? If not for any other reason, the Court’s decision is a poor one because it relies on facts that could change with the next legislative session.

Attorneys for Choose Life Illinois have indicated they will seek rehearing in the case, and if that is denied, they will seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

AUL filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of 18 adoption and pregnancy care centers in Illinois, and it is available at http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ChooseLifeILvWhite.pdf. But in typical Seventh Circuit fashion, the Circuit denied the filing of the brief.

Chicago, Illinois — In response to the U.S. Supreme Court announcement that it will not grant further review to life-related cases from Arizona, Missouri, and New Jersey, Americans United for Life (AUL) made the following statements.

Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton requires that Choose Life license plates be offered in Arizona.

Denise Burke, AUL’s Vice President & Legal Director said: “This is huge victory for ‘Choose Life’ license plates. By denying review, the Court has affirmed that Arizona and other states cannot deny Choose Life license plates simply because of their pro-life message.”

AUL filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of pregnancy care centers arguing that the Arizona Life Coalition was discriminated against when the state failed to grant its petition for a “Choose Life” license plate. The Ninth Circuit agreed, and the State of Arizona subsequently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/ArizonaLifeCoalitionvStanton.pdf

As cases involving “Choose Life” license plates are still pending in New Jersey, New York, and Oklahoma, AUL’s Staff Counsel Mailee Smith remarked, “We are hopeful that the Court’s denial of review will signal to those courts that states cannot discriminate against ‘Choose Life’ license plates.”

In addition, the Court denied review in Roe v. Crawford, a Missouri case where a female prison inmate has successfully argued that she has a right to be transported at state expense for an elective abortion. At issue was a Department of Corrections policy prohibiting such transport.

“By denying review, the Supreme Court is allowing a prisoner to unilaterally demand that she be transported for a controversial elective procedure where the associated costs will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers,” stated AUL Vice President & Legal Director Denise Burke. “The Court is also ignoring the state’s interest in protecting women from the negative consequences of abortion—especially those women who are in custody and under the care of the state.”

AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of Missouri legislators arguing in favor of the prison policy. The Eighth Circuit sided in part with AUL, agreeing that the denial of elective abortions does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, and even stating that elective abortions do not constitute medical need. However, the court ultimately agreed with the inmate that her Fourteenth Amendment “right” to abortion means that the state must transport her for abortion.

AUL’s amicus brief before the Eighth Circuit is available at
http://www.aul.org/xm_client/client_documents/briefs/RoevCrawford.pdf

Finally, the Court also denied review in Acuna v. Turkish, a New Jersey case where an abortionist failed to adequately counsel and answer a woman’s questions before her abortion.

“This case underscores the dire need for comprehensive informed consent laws. Had the abortionist in this case been held to this type of legal requirement, Ms. Acuna would have received the information she needed in making the abortion decision,” stated AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith.

To date, New Jersey, 17 other states, and the District of Columbia do not require that women receive any information pertinent to making the abortion decision.

Chicago, Illinois – Americans United for Life (AUL) has filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of nine Missouri not-for-profit pregnancy resource centers in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case Kevin M. Roach, et al. v. Omar Davis, et al.

AUL argues that the decision of the Western District of Missouri, deeming Missouri Choose Life license plates to be private speech, be affirmed.

The case involves a challenge by Choose Life of Missouri, Inc., which applied for a Choose Life license plate under the state’s specialty license plate statute. The organization filed suit against the Director of the Missouri Department of Revenue and members of the Joint Committee on Transportation Oversight when the plate was improperly denied because of its pro-life viewpoint. Defendants claim the plates constitute government speech, and therefore the state can prohibit the message.

However, as AUL demonstrates in its amicus brief, other similar state decisions have been challenged and courts have held that Choose Life license plates are private speech, thus deeming the denial of such plates unconstitutional.

For example, in an Arizona case similar to the situation in Missouri, Choose Life license plates were determined to be private speech because a private organization created and petitioned for the Choose Life plate, not the government.

According to AUL attorney Mailee R. Smith, lead counsel on the brief: “Because the license plate speech at issue is private and because the Defendants, vested in unbridled power, have engaged in improper viewpoint discrimination, the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.”

The money generated from Choose Life license plates in Missouri supports pro-life pregnancy resources that provide a variety of pregnancy and post-pregnancy services, such as adoption education and counseling.

The full text of the brief is available at http://www.AUL.org (PDF).

AUL has also recently filed briefs in Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, et al. and Stormans, Inc. v. Mary Selecky. For more information on these and other briefs AUL has filed, please visit http://www.AUL.org/Amicus_Briefs.

On January 28, the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous opinion in Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton.* The Plaintiff, Arizona Life Coalition, filed the suit after the state refused to issue a Choose Life license plate under the statutory guidelines.

In sum, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Choose Life plates constitute private speech, and therefore the government cannot discriminate based upon the viewpoint presented in the plates. However, the state of Arizona had done just that: it had denied the plates based upon the abortion-related stance presented.

An obvious victory for the pro-life community, the case also places the Choose Life controversy one step closer to the Supreme Court. To date, the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have come to different conclusions as to the constitutionality of the Choose Life plates (and as to the proper constitutional test to utilize when examining the plates). The Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have reached decisions on grounds unrelated to the constitutionality of the plates. And cases remain pending (or will be pending) in the Seventh Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, and a handful of district courts. Guidance from the Supreme Court is necessary.

Bob Egelko, “‘Choose Life’ license plate ruled free speech,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 29, 2008.

See also Defending Life 2008, “‘Choose Life’ License Plates: Funding the cause for life (PDF) & “Choose Life License Plates Map” (PDF)

*AUL filed an amicus brief on behalf of a group of crisis pregnancy centers in Arizona Life Coalition v. Stanton (PDF).