Changes

The Court rejected the argument that the Commission was entitled to chose not to enter the Choose Life/Pro-Choice debate:

The Court rejected the argument that the Commission was entitled to chose not to enter the Choose Life/Pro-Choice debate:

:"where the government is plainly motivated by the nature of the message rather than the limitations of the forum or a specific risk within that forum, it is regulating a viewpoint rather than a subject matter." Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 971; see also Choose Life Illinois, Inc., 2007 WL 178455, *8 (stating in dicta that the denial of an application for a "Choose Life" license plate because it is "controversial" amounts to viewpoint discrimination.  

:"where the government is plainly motivated by the nature of the message rather than the limitations of the forum or a specific risk within that forum, it is regulating a viewpoint rather than a subject matter." Sammartano, 303 F.3d at 971; see also Choose Life Illinois, Inc., 2007 WL 178455, *8 (stating in dicta that the denial of an application for a "Choose Life" license plate because it is "controversial") amounts to viewpoint discrimination.  

The Court concluded that because the Commission denied Life Coalition's application on a ground not expressly related to the forum's purpose by discriminating on the basis of the viewpoint contained in its proposed message,

The Court concluded that because the Commission denied Life Coalition's application on a ground not expressly related to the forum's purpose by discriminating on the basis of the viewpoint contained in its proposed message,