The Lead Off

• A federal lawsuit filed in Ohio challenges the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ process for approving and rejecting personalized vanity license plates.
• Three drivers allege the state’s rules are inconsistently applied and, in some cases, violate First Amendment protections.
• The case is now before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

COLUMBUS, OH. (WOWO) A federal lawsuit filed in Ohio is challenging how the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles reviews and approves personalized vanity license plates, with plaintiffs alleging the process is inconsistent, vague, and discriminatory.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and centers on the state’s rules for what messages are allowed on personalized license plates according to WTOL.

Three drivers are named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which argues the current approval system violates First Amendment protections and allows for arbitrary enforcement.

Plaintiffs say process is inconsistent

According to the lawsuit, Ohio drivers submit requests for personalized plates through an online system, where combinations are either approved or rejected based on state screening guidelines.

The Bureau of Motor Vehicles rejects hundreds of plate requests each year, citing concerns over offensive, vulgar, or violent content.

However, the plaintiffs argue that similar or comparable combinations have been treated differently, creating what they describe as inconsistent enforcement of state rules.

Example plate rejections cited in lawsuit

The complaint references several specific examples of rejected or disputed plate requests.

One plaintiff, William Saki, previously challenged the state after his request for a “GAY” vanity plate was initially denied. Saki later pursued legal action and ultimately prevailed in a separate case involving the same issue.

Saki said he believed the denial reflected unfair treatment of identity-based messaging.

“I know that the BMV wasn’t targeting me specifically, but as a community, I felt that we were being singled out and weren’t allowed to get the plates that we wanted,” Saki said.

Another plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, was denied a plate reading “MF TNDRA,” which he said referred to “My Family Tundra,” while other plates containing similar letters have been approved.

The lawsuit also points to a denied request for “MAFIA,” despite the state reportedly approving “NO MAFIA.”

Legal arguments focus on First Amendment

Attorney Brian Bardwell, who represents the plaintiffs, said the case raises constitutional questions about how the state regulates expressive speech on license plates.

Bardwell said the screening process lacks clear qualifications and consistency in how decisions are made.

The lawsuit argues Ohio’s vanity plate guidelines are “unconstitutionally vague and overbroad” and do not provide clear notice of what messages are prohibited.

It also claims the system allows for arbitrary enforcement by state reviewers.

State response and prior litigation

The Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles has previously defended its authority to reject plates that it considers offensive, vulgar, or promoting violence.

The agency also provides an online tool for drivers to test potential plate combinations before submitting official requests.

In response to the current lawsuit, the BMV said it does not comment on pending litigation.

A prior legal case involving vanity plate denials required the state to create an appeals process for rejected applications, though plaintiffs in the current case argue that system has not been adequately implemented.

The Takeaway

• A federal lawsuit in Ohio challenges the Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ vanity license plate approval process, with plaintiffs arguing it is inconsistent and violates First Amendment rights.
• The complaint cites examples of rejected plates alongside similar approved plates, alleging vague standards and uneven enforcement by the state.
• The case builds on prior litigation over vanity plates and asks a federal court to require clearer rules and more consistent review procedures.