Wooley v. Maynard
| Wooley v. Maynard | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 29, 1976 Decided April 20, 1977 |
|
| Full case name | Neal R. Wooley v. George Maynard |
| Citations | 430 U.S. 705 (more)
97 S. Ct. 1428; 51 L. Ed. 2d 752; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 75
|
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Prior history | Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire |
| Holding | |
| New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display a state motto that went against an individual's morality upon their vehicle license plates. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, Stevens; White (in part) |
| Dissent | White (in part), joined by Blackmun, Rehnquist (in part) |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.
Since 1969 New Hampshire has required that noncommercial vehicles bear license plates embossed with the state motto, "Live Free or Die." Another New Hampshire statute made it a misdemeanor "knowingly [to obscure] ... the figures or letters on any number plate." The term "letters" in this section had been interpreted by the State's highest court in State v. Hoskin to include the state motto.
George Maynard and his wife, followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, viewed the motto as repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs, and for this reason they covered up the motto on the license plates of their jointly owned family automobiles. On November 27, 1974, Maynard was issued a citation for violating the state statutes regarding obscuring of the state motto.
On December 6, 1974, Maynard appeared pro se in Lebanon District Court to answer the charge. After waiving his right to counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to explain his religious objections to the motto. “[B]y religious training and belief, I believe my ‘government’- Jehovah’s Kingdom – offers everlasting life. It would be contrary to that belief to give up my life for the state, even if it meant living in bondage." "[T]his slogan is directly at odds with my deeply held religious convictions…. I also disagree with the motto on political grounds. I believe that life is more precious than freedom.” The state trial judge expressed sympathy for Maynard's situation, but considered himself bound by the authority of State v. Hoskin to hold Maynard guilty. A $25 fine was imposed, but was suspended during "good behavior."
...
Wikipedia