Yes, the First Amendment protects speech on personalized license plates

Calling the California DMV’s logic “nonsensical,” a federal court handed PLF client Jon Kotler an important preliminary victory in his case and for free speech.
 
Jon sued after the DMV denied his application for a personalized license plate with the configuration COYW—a commonly used acronym for the Fulham soccer team’s slogan (“Come on You Whites”), which refers to the color of the team’s jerseys. The agency claimed the slogan is “offensive to good taste and decency” and asked that Jon’s case be dismissed, arguing that personalized license plates contain the government’s speech.
 
The court rejected the DMV’s request in a decision Wencong Fa says is an important first step to vindicating not only Jon’s right to express his own views but also important First Amendment principles.

Read More

The Takings Clause protects you against government theft

Thieves usually show no remorse until the law catches up to them and makes them pay for what they’ve stolen.
 
But what happens when the thief is your government, clothed with the authority of law?
 
Christina Martin explains that fortunately, the Constitution’s Takings Clause, though imperfectly enforced, gives you power to protect yourself when the government takes your property without paying you for it.
 
Whether it’s Uri Rafaeli in Michigan, Michael and Cathy Zito in North Carolina, or Rose Knick in Pennsylvania, this little clause gives all of these property owners a fighting chance to hold government accountable for taking private property, no matter the type of theft.

Read More

At Stake: California’s Gag Rule statutes keep workers in the dark about their rights

As enthusiastic members of the University of California, San Diego parking staff, Mike Jackson and Tory Smith love their jobs. As reluctant members of Teamsters Local 2010, however, they hate being forced to give the union money against their will.

The coworkers thought the Supreme Court’s Janus decision dealing with coerced union support would solve their problems. Instead, Mike and Tory ran into a new state law that intentionally circumvents the Supreme Court and keeps them from knowing their rights.

Read More