Wooley v. Maynard
1977 United States Supreme Court case
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions.
This case has been praised by legal scholars as a check against compelled speech by the government and a strong protection of symbolic speech in the form of covering up government speech on private property.
Background
Since 1970 New Hampshire had required that noncommercial vehicles bear license plates embossed with the state motto, "Live Free or Die". Another New Hampshire statute made it a misdemeanor "knowingly [to obscure] ... the figures or letters on any number plate". The term "letters" in this section had been interpreted by the State's highest court in State v. Hoskin to include the state motto.
Facts of the case
George Maynard and his wife, followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses faith (albeit disfellowshipped), viewed the motto as repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs, and for this reason, they covered up the motto on the license plates of their jointly owned family automobiles. On November 27, 1974, Maynard was issued a citation for violating the state statutes regarding obscuring of the state motto.
The public source identifies “Wooley v. Maynard” as 1977 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Wooley, Maynard and United.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Wooley v. Maynard”, the useful work is to connect “1977 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q8033801. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1977, 1970 and 1974.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Wooley v. Maynard”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Wooley v. Maynard primary sources, Wooley v. Maynard archive and Wooley research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Wooley v. Maynard”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Wooley v. Maynard” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.