| 词条 | Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans |ArgueDate=March 23 |ArgueYear=2015 |DecideDate=June 18 |DecideYear=2015 |FullName=John Walker, III, Chairman, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, et al., Petitioners v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., et al. |USVol=576 |USPage=___ |ParallelCitations=135 S. Ct. 2239; 192 L. Ed. 2d 274 |Docket=14–144 |Prior=Summary judgment granted, Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Vandergriff, [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5254442/44/texas-division-sons-of-confederate-veterans-inc-v-victor-t-vandergriff/ No. 1:11-cv-01049] (W.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2013); reversed, 759 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20140715106 388] (5th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 752 (2014). |Subsequent= |Holding= |SCOTUS=2010-2016 |Majority=Breyer |JoinMajority=Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |Dissent=Alito |JoinDissent=Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy |LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. I }} Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment. The Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans sought to have a specialty license plate issued in the state of Texas with an image of the Confederate Battle Flag. The request was denied prompting the group to sue, claiming that denying a specialty plate was a First Amendment violation.[1] Opinion of the CourtThe majority opinion, written by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, relied heavily on the Court's 2009 decision in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, which stated that a city in Utah was not obliged to place a monument from a minor religion in a public park, even though it had one devoted to the Ten Commandments. The court ruled that refusing the minor monument was a valid expression of government speech which did not infringe on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.[1] Breyer wrote that the inclusion of a message on a state-issued license plate implies government endorsement of that message, and that car owners "could simply display the message in question in larger letters on a bumper sticker right next to the plate."[1] Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, arguing that specialty license plates are more commonly regarded as a limited public forum for private expression, consisting of "little mobile billboards on which motorists can display their own messages". Therefore, rejecting the design basically amounts to viewpoint discrimination.[2] Charleston shootingIn part because of the proximity in time of the Supreme Court's decision with the Charleston church shooting in 2015, the decision was discussed in the media in relation to a controversy which arose in response to the shooting. The massacre was directed at nine African American churchgoers at one of the oldest black churches in the United States. One of the most notable victims, Clementa C. Pinckney, was a member of the South Carolina Senate at the time; the suspected shooter, Dylann Roof, was discovered to have been depicted in images with Confederate flags on his controversial website, including one with a Confederate flag on his license plate. At the time of the shooting, the Confederate battle flag flew over the South Carolina State House. As an example of Walker's relevance to the controversy, on June 23, 2015, six days after the massacre at Charleston, three state governors—Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (a Democrat), Pat McCrory of North Carolina (a Republican), and Larry Hogan of Maryland (a Republican)—announced plans to seek discontinuation of their state's Confederate-flag specialty license plates.[3] The governors cited the Supreme Court's decision in Walker in support of their position.[3] Prophetically but coincidentally relevant to the controversy, Associate Justice Alito, writing for the dissent, discussed the meaning of the Confederate flag to different social groups: {{quote|text=The Confederate battle flag is a controversial symbol. To the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans, it is said to evoke the memory of their ancestors and other soldiers who fought for the South in the Civil War. To others, it symbolizes slavery, segregation, and hatred.}}See also
References1. ^1 2 {{cite web|title=Supreme Court Says Texas Can Reject Confederate Flag License Plates|first= Adam |last= Liptak | authorlink= Adam Liptak |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/us/supreme-court-says-texas-can-reject-confederate-flag-license-plates.html | work= The New York Times |accessdate=2015-06-19 |date= 18 June 2015 }} 2. ^{{ussc|name=Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans|volume=576|year=2015|docket=14-144}}. 3. ^1 Jess Bravin, [https://www.wsj.com/articles/virginia-moves-to-banish-confederate-flag-from-license-plates-1435071533 "Governors Seek to Curb Confederate Flag License Plates: Moves follow Charleston mass killing, Supreme Court ruling"], Wall Street Journal (June 23, 2015). External links{{external media|audio1= [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-144 Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.], Supreme Court Oral Argument, 03/23/15 }}
| case = Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, {{Ussc|576|___|2015|el=no}} | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-144/ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-144 | other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) | other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf{{US1stAmendment|speech|state=expanded}} 7 : Sons of Confederate Veterans|United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|United States Free Speech Clause case law|2015 in United States case law|Vehicle registration plates of the United States|Flags of the Confederate States of America |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。