Ames Moot Court Competition 2009

good evening good evening everyone my name is Stephanie Matthews and on behalf of the Board of Student advisors and Dean Minow I'd like to welcome you to the final round of the Ames Moot Court Competition the case before the court tonight Springfield versus humans against the consumption of animals was written by Minotti Patel Harvard Law School Class of 2002 the case presents two questions first whether the ames specialty license plate program constitutes a hybrid of government and private speech requiring First Amendment protection and second assuming that at least some private speech is implicated by the aim specialty license plate program whether the program creates a limited public forum and whether the state's rejection of the organization's message meat is murder constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination petitioner Theodora Springfield the executive director of the Department of Motor Vehicle Services for the state of Ames is represented by the Honorable Clarence Darrow team Paul Balin Brian Rochelle Nikko Cornell kate nielsen race daily and will Sullivan Kate Nielsen and race Ailee will be making oral arguments on behalf of their team respondent humans against the consumption of animals a nonprofit organization dedicated to decreasing reliance on animal products for nutritional and other purposes is represented by the Charles Sumner team an effect Candice Phoenix Colleen Rowe Hilary Chanel Hagen Scottie and Tobias Tobler Candace Phoenix and Hagen Scott and we'll be making oral arguments on behalf of their team the Honorable Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will preside as Chief Justice of this final round argument joining Judge Posner will be the Honorable Diane wood of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the Honorable Barrington Parker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit no photography of any kind is allowed at any point during the argument or during the announcement of the results please turn off all cell phones at this time we ask that you please remain seated while the oralists are speaking please hold your applause until all or have finished and remember that the petitioner will make rebuttal arguments after the respondent has spoken best of luck to both teams and enjoy the argument [Applause] all rise the Chief Justice and associate justices for the United States Supreme Court hear ye hear ye hear ye all persons having business before the Honorable the United States Supreme Court are admonished to draw near and give their attention for the court is now sitting god save the United States and this honorable Court so good good evening ladies and gentlemen so our case for arguments Springfield versus humans against the consumption of animals and Miss Neilson are you first mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court my name is Kate Nielsen as my co-counsel race daily I represent Theodora Springfield as petitioner we would like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal mr. Sayle will address how even if a forum is held to have been opened Ames's restriction of respondents message was permissibly content-based i will address how in light of Summa no forum was opened instead Ames's use of its property and resources to promote its message was legitimate here for three reasons first aims like the city and suma controlled the message of its speech selection process second license plates are a traditional place for government messages look how can you make the argument that this is government speech when the genesis of the message is with these organizations that participate in the program it's not it's not the government speaking it's these organizations Your Honor we think that the license plate design here just like the monuments in Summa were privately created and were private speech at that time of creation but when they submit it to the speech selection process and when the government chooses messages based on the submission requirements based on the message that the government wants to convey and then takes ownership over those your theory is sort of is a kind of a government as bent reliquary that when the government mouths the words of these organizations it it somehow automatically takes on the your honor I think it's actually much more than that it's not just that Ames is mouthing the words Ames is choosing only those license plates that represent a message that the government itself is willing to convey and that promote the government's policy goal of promoting charitable efforts in Ames you could say the same thing about viewpoint discrimination Ames is choosing only those viewpoints that it's that it likes I don't know why ames cares about saving the lemmers for example your honor we think that the relevant question is not whether it was the most pressing priority surely the lemurs probably are not but whether it's a message that aims could comfortably afix it's a perimeter to comfortably support and that the speech selection process was designed to ensure that aims just like the cities' you recognise any limits on what what they can approve yes your honor we can get the word well so constitutionally the question is whether they had control over the message final approval they prevent can they suppose you have a beef beef producers association aims and they want to want a license plate that says all red blooded Americans should eat Ames beef so can you approve that would that be permissible yes your honor we think that if that's the message that the government is willing well what if they say vegans are commies that's the next step right certainly that would not meet the statutory no no I don't understand the statutory limitation constitutional no you can change the statute right and cause constitutionally Your Honor we think that they can do though they never articulate the standard that you are applying to distinguish between the chief justices to hypotheticals your honor the distinction between those two hypotheticals with statutory no no tell me how the next time around when it's vegans or commies or vegans are bad or it's any other kind of message ha what's the sorting principle the Constitution does not place limits on the type of message the First Amendment has not placed limits on the type of message that the government could choose to say could choose to propagate we do think that the government speech doctrine though is premise on the assumption that the government is held politically it's troublesome about it in these excited vegans or companies is a lot of people seeing these plates they'll assume that that's just the state's view right which it is apparently and and don't you in a situation like that have to give the the vegans some some right of reply your honor the vegans reply there is in the court of public opinion is in making sure that they can have newspaper articles written about this they can release their much I know you mentioned I think bumper sticker it's good because here's the license plate says vegans are commies then you have vegans or commies on the license plate next to it is a pathetic bumper sticker you know meat is murder that doesn't really offset the impression that actually makes the the vegans are commies really look like the official opinion of aims which but apparently you think that's fine they're just you can say anything at once right your honor certainly the statute here they know not the statute right because because because the question is what the Constitution limits I say you could rewrite the statute say that miss Springfield has unlimited discretion to adopt state policy and to advance it by her pattern of approvals of license license private license plates yes and the message that the government propagates can be troubling just like a government policy can be bad at government can choose to pass back what horse wouldn't say this doesn't look at all like government speech if we are to take some as the measure of government speech so where for example is the scarcity that we had ensue mom you obviously can't pepper the grounds of the state parks or the capital or whatever with thousands of monuments but where's the scarcity here your honor this is a program that aims must be able to manage like any other program but it has it collects the amount of money it needs to it could always raise the price of five dollars for an administrative fee isn't enough we could charge seven dollars there are both the cost concerns and there are also the concerns about license plates being identified both of those are reasons that aims may want to limit the size of the program under viewpoint neutrality but they don't have any no part of the law makes one think that that's what's going on in fact you only need 500 signatures and if Ames as a state is just let's say approximately the size of the state of Massachusetts there are 6.4 million people who live in Massachusetts that would be enough for 12,800 license plates that say nice things like we love children or you know eat more blueberries I just don't see how this is government speech when is justice Parker said the phrase is made up by the private group it's approved you have all sorts of things in exhibit J to the record we love your heart Service Above Self affordable housing save the lemurs you know protect our trees that might offend the lumber industry your honor just like the process in sum'n we think that the government here is speeching speaking by selecting these plates but they didn't so let me there's no scarcity though the court emphasizes and Summum that the park is an area where the government needs to have that kind of control and I see nothing whatever that shows Ames monitoring the speech here in fact most of the courts that have looked at this have not seen this as government speech Your Honor we recognize that there's not the same physical limitation we do believe that the managerial concerns of any government program require that Ames not be required to open it up to the infinite number of plates that would result in viewpoint but at the end of the day isn't your position that this dialogue we're having with you is for one of a better word just academic because this is really government speech and you can say anything you want to there are no constitutional limits [Music] that that can can be imposed on what you choose to put on your license place if this is government speech the First Amendment does not restrict what the government can do answers yes yes so say so look what what if what if the people of aims don't know the statutory criteria so they see a dairy you know the dairy industry and the fish eat fish that's fine they don't know why Meat Is Murder why why why something like that it isn't approved right your honor if they don't know the statutory criteria they may not but it has taken it well you know why isn't that important suppose they think that every one of these every one of these licenses license plates have been approved because this is what the state believes the state believes an eating fish and meat and it's it's against meat is murder right because one of your arguments is that well they they should have tried to work it out and have a less offense or less you know inflammatory vegetarian message but do the people know that yes they're vegetarians could get a license plate they just it would just have to be worded differently we think they do what makes you think they do we're in the program does it say that the state can suggest different wording Your Honor I believe that two elements of this statute do potentially give the opportunity to rewrite and prove specific wording that's the ability for the executive director to particularly authorize any specific text that appears on the license plate and that's also the requirement that any final design is created by the organization working with the DMV wisely or why is the director bothering to do all this if it's car if it's really government speech we think the aims here has created a program and is attempting to be as open and transparent about how this program works as it can be but this this really illustrates how unlike your program is from the one in Johanns for example you know beef it's what's for dinner if Ames is really speaking then it gets something that reminds it that maybe the vegans want a voice and so they just say you know eat vegan or something they they wouldn't have to fuss with all of this back and forth with the organization's Your Honor the message may have been more particular in johan's but we believe that it aims his operation here is actually far more open than the government which did not have to identify itself but it doesn't look anything like the statute in johan's you will agree there's a statute that Congress creates they say this is money to promote the beef industry this is exactly what needs to be there there's nothing like this this is license plates that are generated from the state of sorry from from the private organizations your 501 C 3 or 501 C whatever organizations Your Honor we do agree that it does not look as much like Johan's as it looks like suma but we do not think it looks like suma either just because of the important differences we've been discussing Your Honor I think that it's the same ability for the government to be able to speak to a speech selection process as long as as the requirement in johan's hold held that it controls the message and has final approval authority so isn't your position and consistent with Wooley against Maynard no your honor we believe that the holding of Wooley is that a private individual cannot be compelled to endorse the government's message but Willie took for granted that New Hampshire's license plate motto was a government ideological message here and and he this the the person who didn't want to speak that message was allowed to put the masking tape over live free or die so that he did not have to speak it shows that there's a private element in this speech yes your honor and we absolutely believe that the government could not require any particular individual to buy a particular specialty license plate but neither should an individual be able to compel the government to endorse approve through its official program the particular message that the private party wants the government is nobody has to buy the license plate who doesn't want that message to be there but this is a particularly effective vehicle for getting an organization's out if you think of the number of hours people spend in their cars it's probably second only to the number of hours they spend in front of television sets Your Honor we do believe it's effective and we believe that part of the effectiveness of this program is that anybody who buys a license plate through this program knows that the government is monitoring the funds raised through the program that the government is ensuring that the primary purpose of the organization is to benefit aims and that the government is taking responsibility and saying that yes this message is what are they why do you have they excluded religious statements Your Honor we think that they've excluded religious statements because they recognize that this is a government program and they don't want to entangle themselves in Establishment Clause violations we think on your feet well but they on your view choose life should be fine the government does all sorts of things it only funds it doesn't fund abortions it does all sorts of things your honor although the government could choose to craft a program that would say something that might be controversial we think that the government speech doctrine also allows the government to do as it has done here in a program that's creating a neutral but not at what point in this process did the did this slogan Meat Is Murder become government speech I mean the the organization presumably you know walked in the door with this moniker they wanted on the license plate and there was an application process and a vetting process and so forth and so on and all ultimately we have the problem that brought us here when did it turn into government speech Your Honor I believe it turned into government speech when Ames exercised its approval Authority demonstrating its control over the message in accordance with its submission requirements and then place this on its license plates with its name at top all right and so I want to ask you following up on the non-controversial point why do you think that supporting the Darwinian society is non-controversial Your Honor we don't know what that we believe license plate looked like we think that Ames is intent to avoid religious entanglement is clear from its rejection at the Catholic League but but you're avoiding the question because it's the aims Darwinian society it says we believe and the proceeds go to maintaining the dinosaur exhibit now there's some people who don't think that evolution happened your honor we agree that someone could bring an Establishment Clause violation if they believe that the government wasn't angling itself doesn't have to be Establishment Clause it's just controversial subject matter in your opinion your honor we believe that aims is intent in looking at these license plates pages 31 through 33 of the joint appendix it's clear that aims has attempted as much as possible to make this a benign program if there is a benign but you know but the but the veg the vegetarians they're very upset by this think it's benign for them Your Honor may I answer the question myself your honor my co-counsel will actually be discussing precisely this we do think that under the government speech doctrine the government must be able to determine what speech is coming from its program and my co-counsel will address that okay well well thank you very much thank you your honors so we hear next from mr. seeley seeley am i pronouncing that correctly mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court over the last six years Ames has produced specialty license plates featuring messages like protect our trees and visit historic Ames the respondent don't believe that's that's correct your honor of the Ames did approve the we believe plate and as my co-counsel noted it's unclear what the circumstances surrounding the approval of that message are but you can't run away from that we believe plate they've decided to endorse the views of people who think that evolution happened well we certainly don't think it's a problem that the government has endorsed that particular message the only the extent to which that it just blows a hole in the idea that you're trying to steer away from non-cotton from controversial subject matters and it also suggests that if we think this is not government speech you certainly are favoring one viewpoint over another well Your Honor we don't think that the we believe plate indicates in any way that Ames has attempted to favor one viewpoint over the respondents particular message so first of all we don't think that although challenge my everyday do you have one support our troops well what if someone wanted to have license plate that says bring our troops home um Your Honor I think if the if aims because we believe this is ultimately a government speech program where Ames was actively endorsing the specific messages I don't get anything out of the part of the term government speech well okay so if this Court finds that a forum has been established we do get anything out of forms either so what can you put it in common sense terms so suppose you know some people wanted us to get out of Afghanistan they have their bring our troops home so what what is what does Ames do this does Ames have a foreign policy or what what doesn't necessarily have a foreign policy but I think it's political Ashleigh for states to have that's correct and as Massachusetts particularly knows um I think in that case what we have to look to is the purposes of the program in the first place what Ames was trying to do here as it as it carefully noted can you concretely about bring our if if they have if they've approved support our troops do they have to approve bring our troops home um again I don't think in this particular program it has to Your Honor I think what Ames has tried to do here is create a program where the government was opening itself up to message submissions and where the government could then decide to endorse particular messages but you know is let's take a step back suppose we were really just talking about a public park and Ames said we'll let people come on to the public park with banners that say support our troops but we won't let people come on to the public park with banners that say bring the troops home I take it that's very clearly and unconstitutional that would be your honor on Ames is part so the question is why isn't this the same thing well a public park has been recognized by this court to be a traditional venue answer I mean we're trying to figure out if these license plates which are as I said a billboard that most people in modern society see a lot more of than they see of public parks or they see of all sorts of other venues why in fact isn't different from the public park well first of all we think that license plates are simply not traditionally a means for private school which is no why does it matter whether it's traditional you know what are you gonna freeze freeze the law in the nineteenth century you know I don't think that's what this court has to do your honor I think what you're okay electron won't recognize electronic media right well I think sensor Twitter I don't think that's the our traditional I think the I think when the government well I think what tradition gets us is analyzing whether a particular means of communication is seen to be a means by which private entities can communicate since the license plates aren't not primarily used for that purpose and use primarily on occasion we don't think so your honor we think that now they're people who probably have license plates that say Harvard Law School and there certainly are people who have license plates that say go Longhorns or other sorts of things people have license plates that that say choose life in some states they have license plates that that say save our children against childhood abuse people make all sorts of use of license plates for messages that's right your honor and I think but I think it's this Court should also recognize that if a state wanted to completely eliminate a specialty license plate program and prohibit all messages it would certainly be allowed to do so could it prohibit bumper stickers they couldn't prohibit bumper stickers your honor hood they could not traditional it's not traditional but I think it's clear that in both a tradition was important it's important but not the only factor that can protect speech Your Honor I don't think that tradition the fact that a means of communication is traditionally open to the public is the only way that the speech can be protected however but the problem here which is why tradition isn't helping much is if you look at the statute that Ames has passed it is a statute that opens up the license plate for messages from a certain set of private groups nobody's arguing about whether the group here fits those criteria they do they're a charitable group they devote their monies to charitable uses so when the state says in a sense we're building a new Park we're building a new place where people can express themselves why do they get to restrict the content well I think if this were more like a park the government wouldn't even be able to discriminate on the basis of whether a program was charitable so it's clear that the government has established a program where it's an visioning some level I just said bumpers I mean the car doesn't look like a park but you just said bumper stickers are sacrosanct well III think that the bumper sticker to the extent obviously it's not blurring the license-plate numbers it would be considered private speech and in the way that the government way this is why why because it would be most of difference being that in the license plate the difference between that and the law and there's some reference somewhere to a license plate frame whatever that is but presumably if it's if it's some what a holder for the you could your honor huge frame maybe with that's okay that's okay that would be okay your honor and I think that key distinction here is that metaphysical I mean this is a sacred surface of the license government owns that surface that's right your honor and I think that is the key distinction because because a license plate does have the name of the state and blazoned it's very top and because the program in this case has been designed specifically to allow organizations to apply for Ames's approval we think it's very clear that in this case the messages that appear directly on the license plate belong to the state of aims and that aims is entitled to make selections and what types of views it wants well laser one of the bases that your client used for for turning down this license plate was not that it was not traditional or you know that sort but that it was in her words inappropriate and not normal well we do think your on what what is the how what's what's that what's what's Ms Springfield's authority to make these normative judgments well first of all we think that Miss Springfield has experience running a DMV program because she has experience being a vegan what's not certainly not your honor but uh well probably not but however we did we apparently not I would say we do however think that what she what's unnormal about a vegan license book we think that it's perfectly acceptable for a vegan license plate to be published when that vegan license plate attempts not what she said so it was not normal she also specified in that same interview that she would be open to a vegan license plate that didn't use the word murder and didn't attempt to express its message in such an inflammatory manner so it's not the case that the state is simply opposed to vegan viewpoints completely the state has made very clear that would be willing to accept a plate submission from the respondent organization we simply think that the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that these license plate messages fall above a minimum threshold of discourse and that this plates essentially don't become a means of creating additional partisan debate where the government has never intended it to be bother with an explanation if this is government speech well we think that it's only beneficial that the government wants to enact a policy in which it does provide means of endorsement but also provides clear transparent criteria that individual plates must meet in order to receive the government's endorsement then it's a flop at that point clear prints transparent criteria well again your honor I think in this case although the standards do leave some room for discretion in the hands of miss Springfield these terms that that she uses like potentially offensive controversial or inappropriate are similar to other statutes that were like obscenity laws or well one of the ones she turned down she turns down from Children International something that says real help real hope that's right now how is somebody supposed to know that that is impermissible well the lemurs is okay well in that case your honor that particular plate you're referring to was submitted by an organization whose primary purpose didn't benefit the local community of aims one of the primary criteria that Eames sought to enforce when enacting its program was that each of the organizations that receive benefits from this program did in fact benefit the club that sounds like an after-the-fact rationalization to me because anybody wanted to approve that license plate would say real help real hope would think that the people of aims were being told lend a hand and you're going to help your community and this is how we want things to run in Ames and so sure we can look at each of these things and come up with it a post hoc rationalization but I don't think that gives people the clear and transparent standards you just mentioned I don't think this is a post hoc rest room there's a rationalization the statute itself I think it's on page 13 of the joint appendix specifies that organizations which are applying to this program have to meet certain criteria among those criteria are that it primarily benefits the local community of Ames that's the purpose of the specialty license plate program in other words we think that it was clear from the beginning and the program's inception that what the program was trying to do here was enable charities in the that benefited the local community to promote their organizations by creating these license plates that would bring in additional funding and allow and allow them to get additional publicity with you so you've given up on the idea that this is a viewpoint-neutral it sounds to me I think a reason to have defaulted back to your co-counsels argument I think there are reasons why we restricted the respondents plate in particular were viewpoint neutral the reasons we did so were simply because they chose to express their view in a manner that was derogatory in a way that was inappropriate for the forum because they chose to use violent language which they explicitly stated sought to invoke images of the torture and slaughter of animals maybe they were just you know fans of the group the Smiths I don't get the reference you're it's an alternative British rock group who have an album called Meat Is Murder that was issued in the 1980s I think I actually stumbled upon that in my way I do think however that and you think your statute could be constitutionally applied to to bumper stickers I don't think it could your honor I think bumper stickers never begin as government speech the government never exercises control over them so it certainly couldn't be government speech to the extent arguments you make for the license plate you could make for bumper stickers right you could say charge $40 for a bumper sticker and you can have a bumper sticker and we'll you know we'll we'll have the same criteria the in offensiveness and all that well I think in this case your honor so I think your what you're suggesting is that aims could create a bumper sticker program of its own and then if it said something like aims endorses a certain organization it certainly would be government speech in that case aims wouldn't be forced to produce bumper stickers that it did endorse so as long as they put the so so they could have this program and have the name aims on the bumper sticker and then it would be would be fine well right that's right your honor the government couldn't be compelled to produce bumper stickers but it couldn't restrict private drivers from a fixing bumper sticker sliders by other private parties because the bumper sticker is private speech your honor and nobody's confused everybody right I don't think so your honor the confusion here is that I don't get the license plate in the bumper sticker I can see why they don't want to have a bunch of waring license plates I understand that the vegans and the meat-eaters at each other's throat I understand that but that would be true if they had a bumper sticker program that it would look we want the bumper sticker to be this you know device by which these nonprofit organizations can raise money for for a m-- in Ames Oh Your Honor going to say we're taking over the bumper sticker franchise and you know you want to have a bumper sticker on your car you have to you ask for well Your Honor I think in that case can they do that oh it might be okay if the state wanted to was worried about clutter that it cleared up I'm not sure what the contours of that program would be or if it's exactly like this one then I think we wouldn't be as concerned like for example of a private bumper sticker didn't have the word Eames on it and didn't suggest that names endorsed it it's uncover because it's gonna have Eames on the top just the way just the way this does it just won't have the numbers Your Honor I think the difference here is that private parties can't produce their own license plates in other words there's no opportunity like the license plates are government-issued they're created by the government and you can only obtain them through the government bumper stickers are available vans private sale of bumper stickers it's a government monopoly Oh in that case your honor that restriction might might fall under the restriction the constitutional problems faced in the case city of Ladue viga leo where essentially what happened was the Court recognized that the state couldn't prevent all homeowners from putting up signs in their front yard because that would be a restriction that unduly burden the freedom of speech cars are different I mean I don't see any reason why Eames couldn't say we don't want vehicles being cluttered up with all sorts of things pasted onto them the only thing you can have is the things that we sell you again as long as I think the the problem here would be that the government would be contradicting itself when it said it was worried about clutter and then authorized bumper stickers that would that that would cause the very same clutter I think it might be okay for sticker per car again if that if that restriction was applied viewpoint-neutral II it might be okay if it wasn't applied viewpoint-neutral we then it pasta it might not be a permissible one we don't think that the government can disfavor speech but in this case we weren't disfavoring vegan viewpoints in particular we were rejecting the vegan aims is rejecting the vegan viewpoint because aims essentially sought to provoke a fight where none had existed what order would a car own I have a First Amendment right to say anything then he or she wanted on a bumper sticker I think I think that the state couldn't restrict that Your Honor I think that unless I see my time is up going to finish answering your question sure I think that in that particular case a car owner would have a straw private speech interest in the particular message and couldn't be restricted from delivering that thank you your honor okay thank you for it thank you very much mr. Seeley so mr. Phoenix mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court my name is Candice Phoenix and along with my co-counsel Higgins cotton we were representing respondent humans against consumption of animals I will argue that this program is not government speech why my co-counsel will argue that petitioner Springfield impermissibly discriminated against Hoffa on the basis of his viewpoint you recognize any right in government to censor license plates yes your honor the government has the ability to censor license plates on a variety of basis for example taking from this Court's prior case law if the government wanted to keep obscenities off of the license plates curse words scatological references we lose in words yes your honor well what would be the basis for keeping curse words off well as this Court recognized what we do have and keep curse words out of newspapers no your honor it cannot keep the amount of news newspapers but there's a difference in terms of the type of forum that the government has opened up here it's opened up a limited public forum wherein it retains a heightened amount of control over the forum but Atkins level of control it doesn't allow it to discriminate on the basis of viewpoint but I want to go back to the to the government speech point at a more general level because you're moving us right away into the various kinds of forum analysis whatever one may think of that you would agree would you not that if aims just wanted to have license plates that had some alphanumeric combination that said aims at the top at some little sticker you know to show that you'd renewed each year that's all it has to do right yes your honor there is no constitutional right to a license plate so why when they decide to stamp out some license plates that have a different picture on it aren't they still in fact doing the same thing they're creating an identifier for the car and maybe one of them has a cow on it and one them has a fish on it and so on and so forth but but they're really just having a somewhat more elaborate state-controlled identification program thus government speech if the state were to of its own volition create the license plates that you just mentioned we would assume at that program with the government speech but isn't that inconsistent with Summum summons says it doesn't matter if private parties have helped the government or indeed in that case even donated the whole monument the ten commandments monument that's true your honor but the difference between this case and Summa is one of purpose the state of aims has specifically said that the purpose of this program is to facilitate private speech when in the statute and its stipulations at the district court and in its press release that it distributes both online and in every DMV s office throughout this but you're pro your position you just you just kill the program and I can see why you might prefer to kill the program than to be excluded from participation but they can't run a program with no with no control over content except you know I don't know dirty words or something yeah because otherwise everybody will it be able as this is justice wood pointed out you know you only need five hundred people for a license plate gonna have everybody at each other's throats right so the state would say no we can't we can't be involved with this well Your Honor we don't believe that allowing hakka into this program would force the closure of the program and we know that is good would because you'll have people who say kick out kick out the immigrants well could you well here are the only words I'm sorry your honor you say could you have something like expel all immigrants from the United States well this statute actually puts forth a restriction that no one no no what do you regard as the color is constitutionally permissible you just said obscenity and swear words but well what what else can they restrict well I'm gonna say they can't discriminate on the basis of the content then you're going to have all sorts of ugly stuff not necessarily your honor because confined 500 people to agree to anything that's true your honor which is why the majority of the restrictions in fact you're not making a facial challenge in this case because we believe the restrictions can be constitutionally applied we just don't believe they were so you accept offensiveness as a as a valid criterion it could be constitutionally applies it was not in this case and we know that because the petitioner Springfield has told us so but in terms of the larger idea of the government speech doctrine the the key question here is why Ames opened up the program and it has told us why it did so and it was telling you something different now I mean are we supposed to pay attention to the actual decisions of the authorized official of Ames the director director Springfield I mean you're saying well the statute says one thing but she's the one in charge of running the program and she's saying that you're wrong about its purpose well it's not just the statute your honor in fact petitioners Springfield has put out a press release stating that the purpose of the program is to spread nonprofit organizations messages and this is not just a press release that she put out once a nonprofit organization with any message no your honor there's four foot threshold criteria that nonprofit organization would have to meet in order to become eligible for the program so we'd always join the Ku Klux Klan would that be all right no your honor we don't believe that that would be or the the state could keep that out again there's a restriction in the statute that states that the MU license plate message cannot be disparaging of a race religion national justice join the Ku Klux Klan maybe they've reformed well well part part of the threshold criteria state that the organization has to be one that is beneficial to Ames and it has to run programs that have been official to Ames and presumably we could imagine some program or some group that may be beneficial to the state of Ames such as the Ku Klux Klan it's unlikely that they would ever cross the threshold criteria what is it that made this in your in your view not government speed the key question is what Eames has told us both in its express intent and the structure of the program and that's what underlies the entirety of this this Court's precedent for example in Velazquez and highlighted at the end of the day the state you know produced the license played it controlled the design it sold it it required all motor vehicle operators to to to use it and and certain percentage of them had these messages on it why is it that government speech well petitioner claims that the government retains sole control over the program and takes full responsibility for license plates in many of the ways that you just mentioned but we know in fact that they don't take sole responsibility and we know that because they require responsibility the criteria for government speech we don't suppose supposed I mean all these are D these time doing certainly an idea doesn't have to be one that originates with the government to be protected under the rubric of government speech doesn't that's certainly true your honor but we can look to the structure of the program to see a number of ways in which aims has relied has created something that they claim is government speech but in fact relies almost entirely on the volition of private entities all you're saying is that they at the end of the day use ideas that are not necessarily original how does the lack of originality turn this into something other than government speak speech if the government is doing the speaking it's not the lack of originality your honor it's what the state of aims has told the public and we know from the differences that meant it makes a difference because it creates a First Amendment harm and the government tells the public and its purpose is public does anybody know about this yes your honor everybody knows about this program that that goes for life because we know that the press release that petitioner Springfield has put out is on the website and it comes up whenever you have to go and get a new license plate we know that this a state of aims puts it in every single DMV s office throughout the state for people to see and peruse when they're going for a license plate so they've advertised this very pervasively as one as a program but there's a basic factor you have really danced around and that is that at the top of this license plate that you want which is exhibit F on page 27 is the word aims I mean if that weren't there then it would look a lot like the bumper sticker that we were just discussing but Ames is right there and Ames doesn't want its name associated with this meat is murder Ames might have all sorts of responsible reasons by the way for thinking that veganism wasn't something to be encouraged but it's really just saying this is you know inappropriately in-your-face kind of slogan we don't want this one with our name associated with it well I would say it a few things to that your honor the first being that the statute actually requires that the nonprofit organization be identified on the statute so even if you could hold that example up again you would see that hawkins name is right now I see it's H a CA it doesn't look at all like an organization it looks like part of the part of the license you know part of the bureaucratic informational it's very very bad plate I must say why didn't you try to work out something with him you've conceded that they can censor license plates that you know you've allowed offensiveness as a criterion and so why isn't it your duty before you you know try to upset this apple cart go to them and say alright do you say meat is murder is inflammatory okay let's suggest something else oh you could probably come up with something would be better than this so well you think they would have turned down eat no meat there's no way for us to know that your honor but there is because you because you you you you jump the gun when they when her press release said you know suggested that there there would be possibility of a vegetarian plate you go back and say all right said so you didn't like meat is murder but we have we have some other things for you eat broccoli not bacon right well the problem with with such a framework would be essentially a chilling of free speech because now every organization said they can censor if they if they don't allow offensive I mean if they don't allow swear words that that renders half the population speechless right there so you're permitting censorship once you say censorship is okay and offensiveness is okay doesn't that put on you a duty to try to work something now that's mutually acceptable and it may it's not your first choice your second choice but it gets the message across and it satisfies the offensiveness concerns well certainly we do concede that the city of Ames has several tools in its arsenal to since our certain license plates but we do put forth that they can't do so in a viewpoint discriminatory manner which they have done in this case why why that's not clear because she said she suppose you submitted an alternative that didn't have the word murder in it and she said that's fine then where would be the viewpoint discrimination would be discrimination about you know upsetting people and you don't want violent stuff on license plates it scares the driver behind you so well the reason we know that it's viewpoint discrimination and my co-counsel will addressed this and further detail but we know that because of what petitioner Springfield actually said in the Ames News article well she said two things right about not not thinking this was abnormal behavior something of course it is obviously minority behaved not the most common thing especially the vegans as opposed to just ordinary vegetarians but she also said you know maybe we can work something out so why don't you try to work it out before you bring a lawsuit well we would also note that the statute requires that once we've been rejected we have to wait an entire year before applying again so that's a quite a burden for haka to to bear to wait an entire year before they could quote work on the message with petitioners Springfield but I think it's important that even fact that we're asking these questions demonstrate that maybe it's actually not government speech but but what if I mean I want to go back to your notion that it's somehow wrong for her to be criticizing an alternative lifestyle suppose there was a grew a subset of an Islamic community in Ames that still adhered to traditional views of polygamy and they wanted the license plate to say polygamy is best and and there in Ames and so you know we have the local connection and so on do you think she could say I don't want polygamy is best on a license plate because it's just too fringe a lifestyle for aims well certainly if her reasoning is that it's a fringe lifestyle then that would almost by definition be viewpoint discrimination because she's saying that it's not a majority view and therefore we shouldn't have it on that's why your position if accepted would simply kill the program not necessarily your honor in fact we know that programs can operate under probably be advanced cacophony people are driving down and they see Meat Is Murder and eat meat and and and polygamy is great they're not allowed to have do gay man well no you'd allow that save gay marriage and polygamy yeah well your honor we know that the circuit courts going to consider this question and found that it's actually facilitation of private speech we know that the state that you're gonna kill the program don't you think that's realistic well your honor we know that the states that haven't dealt with this have dealt with the programs under a finding a facilitation of private speech have still kept their license plate programs open and they're still operating so we know that there are states that have been able to manage these and constitutional ways even after a finding that it's not government speech that they've changed them would you say that a program where the state legislature has to approve all license plates as is the case in some states with government speech that would certainly trend much more towards government speech your honor but the the that's what some states have defaulted to well even even that one change criteria wouldn't automatically convert it into a government speech case it certainly would make it a closer call but we would maintain that the government is delegation that's the problem in your view well the problem is that the state of aims is telling the public one thing while it's claiming another behind-closed-doors it's telling the public that the facilitation constitutional implications of statutory implications or what so I mean politicians do that all the time it has constitutional I'm told it has constitutional implications because what the government is doing is that we're allowed to keep Jaquez message out or messages like it is essentially skewing the marketplace of ideas because it's telling the public that several organizations if they are eligible would be allowed to join this program if they meet certain to check this criteria and if now it claims that it's actually it's government speech and they can reject whatever they want then they've told the public that it's a free and open program but it's really not but they'd have to close it because your Meat Is Murder right so Burger King would go crazy and they'd go to the legislature seek you and allow this stuff you know people be frightened to buy it to eat our burgers well certainly it would in mesh they they want to have innocuous messages really what's wrong with having a policy just innocuous message is something no and very few people could disagree even you wouldn't disagree that their fishing license it just says fishing is good for the heart it doesn't say you know fish well it certainly that's that's a natural implication your honor but the key question here again is what is aimes telling the public the question is whether or not they are telling the public that's facilitation of private speech and that's exactly what they're doing so if it wishes to have simply innocuous messages it's certainly able to do that if it were to craft a statute that actually did so but in this case of course I mean oh that's all right they can have a statute which says innocuous messages well we know your honor that the state could for example keep out political battles keep them off of the license plates well we know that well the reason in that case is that there's there's a concern that the government would be possibly in meshing itself in in political battles if it did so and of course it wants to some sort of level that doesn't create a fight on the license all cities people and then versus the vegetarian you don't think that's political I'm sorry Your Honor I didn't your go ahead yeah you don't think that's political no your honor in terms of political the the restrictions are more they don't want the Democrats to have their own license plates and the Republicans to have their own license plates and there was deterrence the meat eaters they're on the polygamous their own lives as pawns none of those are political messages all of them there's no polygamy and gay marriage and so on are intensely political issues well Hawkins put forth a message whose purpose is to encourage people to think about their consumption in terms of their health in terms of the environment in terms of they banned the gay marriage licenses they did is that okay we don't believe so your honor and I see that amount of time so if I just close with one thought Ames has told the public that its purpose is facilitation of private speech and now behind closed doors behind the veil is doing something very different and in fact it is creating a fraud on the public thinking you're right thank you mister Phoenix mr. Scott mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court the purpose and effect of the directors action is to exclude Jaquez views from the forum I don't understand what the forum I mean you're defining the forum is something the size of a license plate that goes on a car and I'm having a very hard time understanding how this in any way impedes Jaquez ability to tout veganism or anybody else's ability to tout what they want because people plaster stuff all over their cars they can take out ads they can Twitter they can blog they can do all sorts of things this is such a minor bit of space that's being restricted what difference does it make to parts your honor first in general this court I think rightly hasn't tolerated small infringement just because the speaker could speak elsewhere certainly if Hawk was banned from only one Park in all of America would have no significant effect on their ability to propagate their message we still wouldn't tolerate that as it would basic principle secondly we do think there is a significant loss this isn't the same as one Park even you know here's your car know how small your car is I mean most people's car has room for a little bit more than just license plate I mean you can get your message across to the other people who are stuck in rush-hour traffic just as easily with the bumper stickers you can by having a license plate that has hakka meters murder on it but being excluded from this program your honor will harm Hawk is ability to get that message out in several ways it only harms it if you really want to get it out with the word aims across the top of the license plate not necessarily your honor many people may not be willing to buy bumper stickers we're willing to buy plates since everyone has to have a license plate on their car they may not be willing to pay the extra money that Ames charges for these special plates you can get a fit actually aims as a bargain in Illinois these things cost $78 but he aims for $15 you can just get your plate and so your if you're willing to part with $40 which would by quite a few bumper stickers by the way you you know you get these special plates I think that identifies can cost as the statute says it also exists to raise funds this Court has found before the suit soliciting charitable contributions is also a protected First Men right it seems hard to imagine people would pay $40 for a bumper sticker whereas you point out people are willing to make such is so terrible you know the police would be a very upset to see the word murderer on a license plate your honor there's there's two problems with the petitioners advancing that claim the first is that it's largely post hoc there is nothing in the letter itself the rejection letter which is all that haka would know had it not brought this suit there's nothing that never even manufactured sued you you choose an inflammatory license plate provoking her reaction and then you refuse to try to negotiate some acceptable plate and at the same time your co-counsel conceding that it's permissible to censor license plates so I seems seems a lot you you should have done before you made this into a federal case well I would like to point out your honor there's nothing in the record to suggest that we refuse negotiations nor did the state offer them which is particularly striking given the state has asserted that it can change wording it never identified any problem of jaquez wording it simply barred the plate which presumably leads to a one-year process for can appeal there is no administrative appeals process that actually group could conceivably have come up with a different more acceptable message I think your honor that's saying they could have it doesn't say we'd be willing to it she's sorry she said any phrase that contains the word murder simply does not have a place on our highways which i think is true well your honor she only said that in an interview once the suit had been brought here she said at one time or 50 times she made a very good point you don't want the word murder on a license plate and your honor if the state of the meat is murder is gonna be a great slogan for a license plate I'm not sure where it was originally developed it is on Jaquez web site it's not something they just manufactured for the purpose of this plate it apparently is one of their key slogans but but in response to your point about a his murder if the state of aims had a broadly applicable rule that was prospectively enacted like the blue lists that the petitioner referred to in their in their plate this would be a different case because then they wouldn't be targeting a specific viewpoint right now what is the rule you're suggesting for them the states which have blue lists it certainly lists a whole category of words that cannot be used on a license plate that's different because it's not used as a tool just to exclude one viewpoint we think when this court said that one should be suspicious that would be fine for them to have a list of words that's right so this is your argument really that there are no ascertainable standards and if the state publishes a list with all of the forbidden words somewhat longer than George Carlin's list I assume but but that would be alright because you'd have advance notice you could draft around it you could then it wouldn't be a tool for sensory I should say your honor obviously some things you couldn't do in a list if you said we're gonna exclude lists you know if this if the university and Rosenberg for example is we're gonna have a list to prescribe words and those were gonna be Christ Christian and Jesus that would transparently still be a viewpoint discrimination but generally speaking a word like murder which isn't associated with any viewpoint that could reasonably be expected of course that could be banned respectively the problem is here they just banned haka with no administrative appeal and now they're asserting this ground of murder which doesn't appear anywhere in the statute it's not in the statute or the policy it's never been used as a ground to reject another license plate it's only appearing now I think it goes right to when this court said attempts to ban a specific word or sometimes actually an attempt to ban the idea it expresses I think so I'm just trying to figure out if you're really bringing a procedural case or if you're bringing a substantive case you're bringing a case it just says this program didn't have ascertainable standards this program left us playing a game of 20 questions you know we come up with a new slogan every year and then we're told that that one's no good either or whether you're really just saying you have a right because your view your organization's view is that meat is murder your members have a very strong view about consumption of animal products is your point the substantive point that you have a right to get that message out on the license plates our point your honor is it haka hasn't has a right to get it's vegan viewpoint out if there was some general ban that caused it to have to rephrase it you're dancing away from the murder point I mean suppose remember of your organization stands up and testifies I think eating meat is exactly the same things if I went and killed my next-door neighbor and was eating him maybe they think that you know and so they want meat is murder on the license plate are you defending their right to have that slogan as the statute is now written your honor yes we think it's important again to quote this court from Rosenberg when we said once the court or when this court said once the court sets up a limited forum it must obey the lawful boundaries it has itself set so as it's now written we think hakka must be Lyda we're not asserting a blanket rule for everyone to say murder anytime they want on a license plate by any means but the problem with this program is that it locks these license plates in if the license plate becomes unapproved then everybody who's gone out and bought it gets to keep it on their car until it disintegrates yes your honor because the statute is not sort of artfully drafted there is some risk but I would submit that the risk of 500 vegans with a license plate that says murder on it that people don't like is considerably less than the risk of allowing them to censor speech in order to keep out this word that's unpleasant to people among 500 license plates that survive any post legislative enactment aren't you arguing across purposes with your co-counsel because she said it's fine to forbid offensive a license plates then it has to be a matter of administrative discretion what is offensive unless you really think the Constitution should be interpreted to require absolute certainty in the statute so they have a list of the forbidden words a hundred thousand forbidden words I would say just say offensive why can't they then leave it to the administrators say yeah murder isn't is an offensive term on a license plate if if the statute has no kanto to it beyond simply an assertion of offensiveness well I thought your co-counsel said your offensiveness is fine how do you okay so you have offensiveness you can list a hundred thousand words murder and all its synonyms in in one thousand different languages and so on what's the intermediate position I think the intermediate position would be something that has some sort of generally recognizable standard well for example in this case just just even example of how it how it could have worked better there's a committee of five legislators that is required to first approve any plate design before it goes on to the director and in part of that they have to make a finding that it's not offensive and it's kamistan can sorry consistent with community standards that committee approved this plate initially and then the director rejected it so if it's a single person a single unelected official nurse which you've switched from the question what is the required detail in this statute to what kind of procedures might enable a vague standard to satisfy constitutional norms right so which is it so so you so are you giving up on having a more specific criterion offensiveness and saying we're gonna have all these layers of approval or I think there might be multiple ways that we've done I mean the list obviously provides a lot of criteria but as you say it's difficult to actually you make such a list having multiple errors and one that's petitioner themselves draws attention to is the idea of a meaning of meaningfully informing a rejected group exactly why they were rejected in this case haka didn't find out that murder was a problem if that specifically is the problem until the interview which the interview is only triggered by a lawsuit but the relief you're asking for is the license plate I mean you're not asking for hearings you're not asking for other kinds of intermediate relief you want that license plate out there that's correct your honor because we think as it's now structured there's no grounds there's a reasonable viewpoint neutral grounds on which the director could keep it out we think and even if we think there's any nuance that stands in the way of your getting that license plate out there then we should rule for the petitioners I don't I don't think that I don't think we'd say that your honor the problem in this case your honor would be they're only they're objecting to the specific message as a way to keep the group out using the one-year statutory delay the fact that there are no meaningful notice requirements if you can simply give blanket notification offensiveness while at the same time saying we're excluding your group on the basis of viewpoint well I mean at the end of the day are you saying more than you simply didn't get what you were otherwise entitled to under the statute III think that that sounds like a fair summary your honor so you're not really you're you're kind of easing off of full-blown constitutional argument well the fact that they are not adhering to the statute is the constitutional problem where the state is using its statute to let in certain views whether it be the fisheries institution or the darwinian z-- but not other views that's when you have the First Amendment harm because it's allowing the state to favor certain ideas of private speakers above others that sounds to me like a concession though that you know you can't attack the state for the way it's administering its own statute because otherwise if the state just isn't applying the statute appropriately I think as justice parker says you'd have a statutory case but but you're kind of agreeing that you can't really second-guess their interpretation of their own statute you don't like what it means from a First Amendment point of view but the statute means what they say it means not not looking within sort of the boundaries of state what we're saying is what Ames is doing here is unconstitutional whether it's because they're getting their statute wrong or because the statute itself is unconstitutional I don't I'm not sure the burden is on us to point that out it well it is on you in a way because federal courts don't sit around and tell States how to interpret their own statutes well the way the state is applying the statute your honor to exclude subject is unconstitutional it may be they said what if the fishing people want to say eat fish or die of heart disease now could the state say no fish is fine we have this nice fishing plate but we can't we can't allow that that's too upsetting I'm not sure under the under the current statute we can rely on anything more than the fact that the state could necessarily keep that out despite the fact that language is rather strong well I'm sorry all right it couldn't keep it out because the statute isn't detailed enough or doesn't have enough procedures to prevent abuse that's your basic concern I would also say your honor it is significant in this case to this finding that we know the director is seeking to exclude because of its views that it said Jaquez views can't come in because they cause confusion next to those of the dairy and Fisheries industries if they've said publicly they're going to exclude license plates the confusion as a criterion I would not there's nothing in the statute your honor that says no you wouldn't accept a statute which used confusion as a criterion is that correct your honor I think much like controversial that's one of those terms could be applied an illegitimate way but often wouldn't be I mean if it was a truly confusing message that was nonsense that made no sense it misled people as to what the laws of the state of aims were or something to that effect that would be a viewpoint-neutral application of the term all right there are two types of confusion we could we could be talking about the state says it would be confusing if the state were perceived as both saying eat fish and saying eat no fish if it's private people as you know some private people eat fish other problem people eat soy all the time so you know there's that level of confusion and then there's just looking at a slogan and thinking huh what does that mean and and I don't think you're talking about the second type I think we're talking about the first kind the former type your honor where the state effectively says this is the view we endorse and we don't want anybody confusing assume you you reject the whole idea of confusion if it's not the state speech to begin with that's why your honor I'm not sure you could ever use confusion as always say well this is a view we prefer so we're going to censor this view because it disagrees with our work can you can the Miss MS Springfield offer reasons for turning you down that are not explicit in the statute I think she could maybe she has to cite one of the eleven statutory reasons but within that she could explain how we qualified for that particular statutory reason and as she's attempting to do in some cases some some of these are problematic for example when she asserts that our slogan is derogatory because in the policy that's actually distinct grounds from offensive controversial aren't appropriate so it would seem to be excluded by the fact she cited one that she's now citing another but in terms of explaining how something is offensive if another organization some submitted an obscene license plate and she explained this license plate as obscene she made reference to why it was obscene certainly she should she could do that your honor however if she says the wrong thing have the obscene license plate wall around the state I don't think there's a difference when their songs the wrong reason then the client is rotting through this I think when there is an objective reason it would clearly keep the plate out I'm the petitioners cite the example of if Hakka didn't have five hundred signatures if she said you don't have five hundred signatures then that's fine Hakka can't get in even if she says you don't have five hundred signatures and by the way I don't like vegans that still keeps hawk out the problem in this case is she said I want to keep vegans out and then she's referenced this statutory provision that's very vague this Court has observed those words are vague before and that appears to be solely within her discretion that she alone can determine what what content is or is not offensive what's government speech she's the government well we don't believe it is government speech of a she's already and the state of aim has already said we're promoting private speakers here we're allowing private organizations to make their messages and then we're allowing them to put it out so until now it wasn't government speech it appears to it appears that the government is trying to make this government speech in order to allow it to viewpoints win your lawsuit yes your honor that's right we don't think that under under these present facts that either his government speech and it's rather clear she is seeking to keep hawk out with specific reference to their viewpoint and then citing what about having a trial to determine that you keep speculating as to what she's thinking well I think your honor courts will seldom see evidence this clear of viewpoint discrimination if the state can say well I don't know I usually give a person a chance to you know be examined and testified to what she was saying she a lawyer it's uncertain maybe she's not a lawyer so she says know how to parse words I think they get to write to the if I can't you briefly your honor I think that gets right to the harm you're talking about she sought to exclude them due to their viewpoint I'm not sure we need to give her another chance to come up with a more reasonable justification thank you okay well thank you very much mr. Scott and we'll hear from rebuttal from from mr. Seeley Thank You mr. chief justice from the inception of the aim specialty license plate program Ames has made it clear that it was designed to endorse specific viewpoints that Ames sought to promote it also made it very clear that offensive controversial and inappropriate plates were not permitted far from constituting a fraud on the public well what about mr. Scott this point that it's it's pretty obvious from the record that she she just decided this on the basis of some personal hostility to vegetarianism well your honor the basis is that okay maybe that's irrelevant your view is that's irrelevant what her motives were well I think the personal the personal opposition that she may have to veganism wouldn't be a factor unless it was the only reason that she gave why would that matter whether it was the only reason oh if there were legitimate content-based reasons for excluding the message we think that at a minimum this court should recognize that Ames is entitled to do so however we also think that it started out by saying by saying that Ames has made it clear that this was aimed speaking but it seems to me Ames has done nothing of the sword if Ames wanted this to be its speech it could have said you know we are in adopting a new license plate program and and here's our state suggestion box you know for what license plates we ought to have and and you know we'll throw some of the money in the direction of people who win the the lottery and and we accept one of your suggestions that's not at all what they did they said we're gonna let organizations promulgate their messages well your honor they think several policy provisions indicate that Ames did intend to endorse the organization's here it specifies that the primary purpose of the of the program is to promote service to the Ames community it notes that no organizations that are contrary to Ames public policy will be admitted it notes that controversial messages are excluded it notes that the committee has to approve every message for being consistent with this we circle back to lemurs and we're just confused I think the state can it was certainly comfortable endorsing the idea that we should save Lee where's your honor I mean what is it what is a lemur I think the lemurs a type of tailed monkey that's usually found in Madagascar and even though that might not be the primary purpose of the Ames org and that really helped Ames how it's unclear why your honor there might be a lemur population in Ames I'm not entirely familiar with but we do think that makes your decision about the the help you know give help give heart that all the more mysterious what your honor that particular organization focused on donations to children and other countries and the purpose of unlike the lemurs I can't again where the record doesn't contain any information about the lemur population in Ames but I could take judicial notice that Madagascar is quite a long way away I mean I think there might be a few animal it could possibly be related to Parker's question so his question was if if this were just the manifestation of personal hostility by miss Springfield and you said something about content-based why would they make a difference I thought like you know she was she's the state in any position that she endorses is state policy I mean some might be unconstitutional if she you know wanted to have an established church but if she just has sided with the meat-eaters against the vegetarians for whatever reason why isn't that I thought you regarded that as as her my time is up your honor well I think the distinction here is that at at the very most even if this program created the most protections for private speech then the fact that this message was offensive justifies the government's restriction we do think that the program was established as a program by which the government could endorse particular messages and make speech selection judgments that could be based on viewpoint however we think that atom minimum and minimum Ames had an interest in avoiding these this offensive language unlicensed play that's your backup position in other words oh yes your honor but we also think that that ultimately justifies the program anyway this Court decides to frame the program thank you your honor okay so thank you very much so the court will be in recess and liber8 on its decision [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] all rise so we have a narrow mandate we've been told exactly what to do we've stuck within the within the terms of and our duty we're is to pick the best or less the best brief and the best team overall and and and in that order we're supposed to announce it so and I'll just preface it briefly by saying you know very very impressed by the quality of the briefs and the arguments and the preparation of that obviously you put into and you know very high quality it's it's it's it's a truism but it is true is importantly true these are the quality of the briefs and arguments are far superior to the average in our in our course but you know we had to make a choice and difficult choice so for best oralist mr. Scott [Applause] [Music] and for the best brief the the petitioners brief the opening brief [Applause] [Music] and for the best overall best team overall the respondents [Applause] [Music] [Music] I think I think judge Parker and judge would like say a few words I would just like to echo what what Judge Posner has just said and we were in the back as you saw offer for several minutes trying to to make these decisions and and the the the margin for each of the calls we had to make was was was very very narrow each of you did a superb job and unfortunately we had to resolve the we were our mandate as you've just heard was to do what we we just did but I don't want any of you leaving here with the idea that in any meaningful sense your first or second or what-have-you you were all you all did a just wonderful job these were reflected just so much just kind of effort and thought and for third-year students you're all extremely precocious and extremely able and you should all be very proud of yourselves I have very little to add to that because I absolutely agree with every word that both judge Parker and Judge Posner has said one of the things that was so great about all of the oralists this evening was your ability to answer the questions we were trying to ask sometimes that's not easy when two judges are asking something at the same time or you can feel that the the thrust of a question is taking you down a path that you might not want to go down for your side but you stood up here and you answered the questions you did a much better job giving a yes or no answer then we sometimes receive from counsel at oral argument who would prefer to drift off in some sideways direction and you also did a nice job coming back to where you wanted to be coming back to your primary point and you each had it was a wonderful problem by the way my compliments to the Ames program for coming up with this problem to the drafter of the problem is patel to those of you who worked through it it was a great well-balanced problem and it's why we as judge Parker said we really had to give some real thought to who did the most with what was available for that team and I it was a complete pleasure for me to hear all of you your oral argument skills and your brief writing skills are well on the way and we look forward to seeing you in the future yeah just like the second what judge partner did we said yes I know there's a very very well designed case really really good case and I thought it's very good that the that you had created a record because I think it's very important for lawyers to to be able to exploit a record even if it's rather brief but I had you know good facts that you could work with and also I'll say based on my experience with judges certainly with judge wood with whom I've said many times that the judges asked the same questions that they would have asked if it were a real case so there wasn't any concession made to the fact that your students and also there were no quest is designed to you know in a in a pedagogical sense they were just the question the judges that we would ask rest if we had to wrestle with the merits of the case you had a realistic experience we had a lot of tough questions and I did very well in August very well for your careers so with that I think we will bid farewell [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] you

Channel: Harvard Law School

Views: 17,196

Rating: 4.9268293 out of 5

Keywords: Harvard Law School, HLS, Harvard University, Supreme Court, Ames Moot Court, Richard A. Posner, Diane P. Wood, Barrington D. Parker

Id: LZ9qhHvPCWA

Length: 87min 14sec (5234 seconds)

Published: Wed Oct 04 2017