ILNews

Woman sues BMV over vanity plate denial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is again involved in a lawsuit involving the use of "God" on a license plate. A Cambridge City woman is suing because the BMV refused to re-issue her personalized license plate with the words "BE GODS."

Elizabeth Ferris filed the suit, Elizabeth Ferris v. Ronald Stiver, in his individual capacity and his official capacity as Commissioner of the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, No. 1:08-cv-1551-SEB-DML, Nov. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages, costs, and attorneys fees relating to the denial of her personalized plate.

This afternoon, Ronald Stiver, commissioner of the BMV, released a statement that said Ferris would receive her personalized license plate. Stiver said Ferris should receive her plate because she completed the application process before a new review process of license plates took effect Nov. 6. The new process aims to be more consistent in approving or rejecting plates with pro- or anti-deity messages.

Ferris claims the BMV denied her application for a personalize license plate for 2009 that read "BE GODS," which she said meant "Belonging to God." Ferris had the same vanity plate for more than eight years. Her 2009 renewal application was denied because the plate was considered "inappropriate due to form or content."

Ferris requested a hearing with an administrative hearing officer, who released a recommended order that stated the First Amendment prohibited the BMV from refusing to issue a vanity plate because of a referenced deity and that the bureau's statutory authority to reject plates with offensive messages didn't authorize it to prohibit Ferris' plate solely because of the reference to religion. The BMV issued a final agency order denying her application for the plate Oct. 15, 2008.

The suit states that Indiana allows a license plate with "In God We Trust" on it, which isn't a personalized specialty plate. Stiver said in the release that the new process for evaluating personalized license plates with religious messages or words is different from the process surrounding the "In God We Trust" license plate, which was adopted by the General Assembly.

Ferris is suing for violations of the First Amendment's Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses, violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. She wants a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the BMV from infringing on her rights and require the bureau to issue her personalized plate. Ferris also wants the court to enter a declaratory judgment finding certain statutes regulating the BMV's authority on personalized license plates, and the BMV's policies and practice regarding personalized plates, unconstitutional both on their face and as applied as violations of Ferris' rights under the First and 14th Amendments.

Ferris is represented by three attorneys pro hac vice from the Alliance Defense Fund in Leawood, Kan., and locally by Michael J. Cork of Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn in Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT