In 1983, Carr applied for the ARYAN-1 vanity plate and was denied by the state. She sued and won; at the time, state law allowed vanity refusals only for profanity or obscenity. The state appealed, but the court ruled in Carr’s favor in 2001, holding that the law at that time was constitutionally overbroad and gave officials too much power to regulate speech. The First Amendment requires speech restrictions to be specific, but Missouri’s phrasing “is so nebulous and malleable [that it could mean] anything presently politically expedient,” the opinion said. “The department of revenue may not censor a plate because its message might make people angry.” The court ruled that vanity license plates were private speech and subject to the full protection of the First Amendment.

Carr’s right to free speech won over the judge’s dislike of the message, but Perry didn’t get the same pass for SHTHPNS. This confusion has led to vanity combos capriciously granted across the United States and is why there are ARYAN plates in many states today. With differing opinions on what’s allowable, each state decides for itself.

The confusion and lack of consensus about what counts as private or government speech on a vanity plate is mirrored in public transport, parks, and schools. More and more, racial and ethnic slurs are being displayed on government property. In 2018, San Francisco’s subway displayed Holocaust-denial advertisements. Public libraries are forced to allow hate groups to arrange meetings on their premises, and in many states, you’ll find anti-abortion and anti-Semitic advertisements on transit.

In cases like these, Caroline Corbin, a constitutional law professor at Miami School of Law, has proposed a new category of speech, “mixed speech,” for when something combines private and government speech. “It allows for a more nuanced and transparent balancing of interests than the present either-or approach,” she says. It seems like an obvious solution; the merge of new mediums is ripe for a new language. But so far, the Supreme Court has not acknowledged this category.

For many authorities, following the law places them in an awkward position: By allowing racist and homophobic messaging, it looks like they support those messages. But some progress has been made in the “specialty plate” space. Specialty plates are the sister to vanity plates — and are often confused as the same. They’re the decorative banner that sits around the letters and/or the background color and font style. In California, you’ll find collegiate specialty plates and others supporting breast cancer, firefighters, Yosemite, and more. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they are government speech, meaning states can control what appears on them — foiling the Texas Sons of Confederate Veterans’ attempt to have a Confederate flag on its specialty plate.

But vanities will be up for a big legal battle again soon. There’s a case weaving its way through the courts right now that will put this in the spotlight

In Los Angeles, Jonathan Kotler, a professor at the University of Southern California and a fan of England’s Fulham soccer club, is appealing the California DMV’s rejection of his COY-W plate request in 2018. COY-W stands for “come on you whites,” Fulham’s chant. The DMV ruled that it “carries connotations offensive to good taste and decency,” with racial overtones. Kotler sued the DMV, arguing it engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The case is moving to trial after a federal judge denied the DMV’s motion to dismiss in August. Kevin Saunders, a law professor and the Charles Clarke chair in constitutional law at Michigan State University, says it’s possible that the case could wind up in the Supreme Court.

A win here wouldn’t be totally out of the box for Kotler, given two recent decisions involving a similar issue. In 2017, an Asian American band calling itself the Slants won a fight to trademark its name, as did fashion brand FUCT two years later. The state rejected both trademarks as “disparaging” — Slants could be seen as an Asian slur, and FUCT, well, “It’s supposed to be pronounced ‘fucked,’” Saunders says. They both appealed and won. The parallels with vanity plates are clear.

“The courts said the trademark office couldn’t deny an [offensive] trademark,” says Saunders, adding that the court determined trademarks are private speech and protected by the First Amendment. “If it’s true for trademarks but not for vanity plates… well, you’re not on firm ground anymore,” he says.

Jacobs says those decisions could open a “floodgate to any sort of awful speech in smaller venues,” as those wins adopted a broad concept of viewpoint discrimination.

Indeed, even Perry, the state administrator from Vermont, has similar concerns after fighting for SHTHPNS two decades ago.

Now 68, she supports the careful issue of vanity plates — nothing concerning race or civil rights issues should get on a plate, she says. SHTHPNS was Perry’s first and last vanity plate. Vanity plates continue to hold the unusual position of both identifier and identity, but Perry no longer sees any reason to let the state know anything about her belief systems. “I’m sick of the whole thing now — plates are the furthest thing from my mind these days,” she says.