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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT