The Supreme Court is seen, Friday, April 21, 2023, ahead of an abortion pill decision in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
By Jessica Gresko
The Supreme Court said Monday it won't review North Carolina's decision to stop issuing specialty license plates with the Confederate flag.
As is typical, the court did not comment in declining to hear the case, which challenged the state's decision. The dispute was one of many the court said Monday it would not hear. It was similar to a case originating in Texas that the court heard in 2015, when it ruled the license plates are state property.
The current dispute stems from North Carolina's 2021 decision to stop issuing specialty license plates bearing the insignia of the North Carolina chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. The chapter sued, claiming that the state's decision violated state and federal law. A lower court dismissed the case, and a federal appeals court agreed with that decision.
North Carolina offers three standard license plates and more than 200 specialty plates. Civic clubs including the Sons of Confederate Veterans can create specialty plates by meeting specific requirements.
In 2021, however, the state Department of Transportation sent the group a letter saying it would "no longer issue or renew specialty license plates bearing the Confederate battle flag or any variation of that flag" because the plates "have the potential to offend those who view them."
The state said it would consider alternate artwork for the plates' design if it does not contain the Confederate flag.
The organization unsuccessfully argued that the state's decision violated its free speech rights under the Constitution's First Amendment and state law governing specialty license plates.
In 2015, the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ Texas chapter claimed Texas was wrong not to issue a specialty license plate with the group's insignia. But the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Texas could limit the content of license plates because they are state property.
Emily Hoeven, newsletter editor at CalMatters, joins Cheddar News to discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom's gun law modeled after Texas's abortion law.
Chuck Rocha, host of 'Nuestro' podcast and opinion contributor at The New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss why Democrats are losing Hispanic voters.
More businesses are requiring workers to return to the office, but there is concern that many employees in the middle class, especially women and people of color, need remote work options for reasons including childcare and financial security. Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, joined Cheddar to discuss why office mandates could be detrimental to the middle class. She noted that while companies claim a return to offices would help foster more collaboration and efficiency, reports show that they are successfully able to do their jobs from home.
The U.S. postal service has confirmed that it secretly developed and tested a blockchain-based mobile voting system ahead of the 2020 election. Susan Greenhalgh, senior advisor on election security, Free Speech for People, joins Cheddar News to discuss the cybersecurity complications of a mobile voting system.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled to allow the controversial Texas abortion law to remain in effect, banning abortion at six weeks and allowing any private citizen to sue a person or doctor aiding or abetting someone seeking an abortion. Outraged at this decision, California Governor Gavin Newsom is working to draft a proposal in line with the law as it relates to guns. Shawn Hubler, California correspondent at the New York Times, joins Cheddar News to discuss.
Even as tech giant Google implements a vaccination mandate, charging its employees to declare their vaccine status within a time frame or risk dismissal, the federal government is tangled up in the court system trying to impose one of its own. Cindy Cohn, the executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Harry Nelson, founder and managing partner of Nelson Hardiman LLP, joined Cheddar to debate the ethics, efficacy, and legality surrounding the issue. While Cohn noted that she thinks the federal mandate might be legally sound, her organization is also concerned with a separate question of privacy. "At EFF what we're most interested in is the digital surveillance that's going along with some of these attempts to try to track and confirm whether people are vaccinated or not," she said.