430 U.S. 705 (1977)
Since 1969 New Hampshire has required that noncommercial vehicles bear license plates embossed with the state motto "Live Free or Die." N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 263:1 (Supp. 1975).1 A separate statute makes it a misdemeanor knowingly to obscure the figures or letters on any number plate, and the state's highest court has interpreted the term "letters" to include the state motto.2
Appellees George Maynard and his wife Maxine are followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith who consider the New Hampshire state motto repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs.3 At the time the suit was commenced the Maynards owned two automobiles registered in New Hampshire, a Toyota Corolla and a Plymouth station wagon.4 Pursuant to their beliefs the Maynards began early in 1974 to cover up the motto on their license plates.5
On November 27, 1974, Mr. Maynard was issued a citation for violating the obscuring statute.6 He appeared pro se in Lebanon District Court, entered a plea of not guilty, and was found guilty with a $25 fine whose execution was suspended.7 On December 28, 1974, he was charged a second time; on January 31, 1975, he was again found guilty, fined $50, and sentenced to six months in the Grafton County House of Corrections with the jail term suspended, but after refusing to pay the fines he served fifteen days in jail.8 A third violation charged on January 3, 1975, resulted in a guilty finding that was continued for sentence.9
On March 4, 1975, the Maynards brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against enforcement of the statutes insofar as they required display of the motto and made obscuring it a criminal offense.10 A single district judge issued a temporary restraining order on March 11, 1975. A three-judge district court was then convened and, after a hearing on the merits, entered an order enjoining the State from arresting and prosecuting the Maynards in the future for covering the motto.11
The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal.12
Whether principles of equitable restraint under Younger v. Harris bar the federal district court from exercising jurisdiction over the Maynards' claims?13
Principles of comity and federalism articulated in Younger v. Harris generally preclude federal courts from enjoining ongoing state criminal prosecutions absent extraordinary circumstances.14 When only the threat of future prosecutions exists, a litigant may resort to a federal forum under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to seek prospective declaratory or injunctive relief from enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute.15
No. The Maynards had sustained multiple convictions and served a jail sentence under N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 262:27-c.16 They sought only prospective relief to preclude future prosecutions, not to annul past convictions or their collateral effects.17 They faced a genuine continuing threat of repeated prosecutions against both spouses that justified federal intervention.18
Principles of equitable restraint under Younger v. Harris do not bar the federal district court from exercising jurisdiction over the Maynards' claims.19
Whether the district court properly granted injunctive relief against future prosecutions in addition to declaratory relief?20
Although declaratory relief ordinarily suffices to protect federal plaintiffs from threatened state prosecutions, injunctive relief may issue upon a showing of exceptional circumstances such as repeated prosecutions creating a continuing threat that impairs the ability to perform ordinary daily tasks.21
Yes. Three successive prosecutions were brought against Mr. Maynard in five weeks under the obscuring statute.22 This occurred after the Maynards covered the motto on their Toyota Corolla and Plymouth station wagon.23 The resulting threat of repeated future prosecutions against both spouses affected their use of automobiles for daily life.24 This warranted the stronger injunctive remedy.25
The district court properly granted injunctive relief against future prosecutions in addition to declaratory relief.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White dissents from the affirmance of the permanent injunction.27 He argues that Steffel v. Thompson and Doran v. Salem Inn approved only preliminary injunctions pending decision on declaratory judgment and subject to stringent standards.28 He maintains that Douglas v. City of Jeannette establishes that equity will not restrain criminal prosecutions absent a showing that the danger of irreparable injury is both great and immediate.
According to Justice White, the state's enforcement of its statute prior to the declaration of unconstitutionality was merely the performance of official duty and does not constitute the exceptional circumstances required to justify injunctive relief.29 He concludes that more is required to be shown than the Court's opinion reveals to affirm the issuance of the injunction.30
Whether New Hampshire may constitutionally enforce its statutes requiring display of the state motto on noncommercial vehicle license plates?31
The First Amendment secures both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking, so a state may not compel individuals to participate in disseminating an ideological message by displaying it on their private property when the state's interest in promoting that message cannot outweigh the individual's right to avoid serving as its courier.32
No. The Maynards, followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith, regard the motto Live Free or Die as repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs and covered it on their two registered New Hampshire vehicles beginning in 1974.33 The statutes forced them as a condition of driving to display the motto to the public and thereby become instruments for fostering adherence to an ideological viewpoint they found unacceptable.34 The state's interests in vehicle identification and promoting state pride were either achievable by narrower means or not ideologically neutral.35
New Hampshire may not constitutionally enforce its statutes requiring display of the state motto on noncommercial vehicle license plates against the Maynards.36
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Blackmun
Justice Rehnquist dissents on the merits.37 He contends that the license-plate requirement involves no affirmation of belief or symbolic speech.38 The state merely mandates an identification tag under its police power.39
Appellees remain free to express disagreement by means such as a bumper sticker without obscuring the plate.40 He concludes that Barnette is inapposite because no actual assertion of the motto as true is compelled.41 Justice Rehnquist notes that the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State v. Hoskin correctly held that display of the motto carries no implication that defendants endorse it as a matter of belief.42