Alito showed more humor than he is usually given credit for in his dissent. Passage citing ND is as follows:
As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would
you really think that the sentiments reflected in these
specialty plates are the views
of the State of Texas and not
those of the owners of the cars? If a car with a plate that
says “Rather Be Golfing” passed by at 8:30 am on a Mon
day morning, would you think: “This is the official policy
of the State—better to golf than to work?” If you did your
viewing at the start of the college football season and you
saw Texas plates with the names of the University of
Texas’s out-of-state competitors in upcoming games—
Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, the University of Okla-
homa, Kansas State, Iowa State—would you assume that the
State of Texas was officially (and perhaps treasonously)
rooting for the Longhorns’ opponents? And when a car
zipped by with a plate that reads “NASCAR – 24 Jeff
Gordon,” would you think that Gordon (born in California,
raised in Indiana, resides in North Carolina)
is the official
favorite of the State government?
The Court says that all of these messages are government speech.
It is essential that government be able to
express its own viewpoint, the Court reminds us, because
otherwise, how would it promote its programs, like recycling and vaccinations?
So when Texas
issues a “Rather Be Golfing” plate, but not a “Rather Be
Playing Tennis” or “Rather Be Bowling” plate, it is furthering
a state policy to promote golf but not tennis or
bowling. And when Texas allows motorists to obtain a
Notre Dame license plate but not a University of Southern California plate,
it is taking sides in that long-time
rivalry.
This capacious understanding of government speech
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf
As you sat there watching these plates speed by, would
you really think that the sentiments reflected in these
specialty plates are the views
of the State of Texas and not
those of the owners of the cars? If a car with a plate that
says “Rather Be Golfing” passed by at 8:30 am on a Mon
day morning, would you think: “This is the official policy
of the State—better to golf than to work?” If you did your
viewing at the start of the college football season and you
saw Texas plates with the names of the University of
Texas’s out-of-state competitors in upcoming games—
Notre Dame, Oklahoma State, the University of Okla-
homa, Kansas State, Iowa State—would you assume that the
State of Texas was officially (and perhaps treasonously)
rooting for the Longhorns’ opponents? And when a car
zipped by with a plate that reads “NASCAR – 24 Jeff
Gordon,” would you think that Gordon (born in California,
raised in Indiana, resides in North Carolina)
is the official
favorite of the State government?
The Court says that all of these messages are government speech.
It is essential that government be able to
express its own viewpoint, the Court reminds us, because
otherwise, how would it promote its programs, like recycling and vaccinations?
So when Texas
issues a “Rather Be Golfing” plate, but not a “Rather Be
Playing Tennis” or “Rather Be Bowling” plate, it is furthering
a state policy to promote golf but not tennis or
bowling. And when Texas allows motorists to obtain a
Notre Dame license plate but not a University of Southern California plate,
it is taking sides in that long-time
rivalry.
This capacious understanding of government speech
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf
