Short version is: the government is too entangled and there is no legitimate secular purpose. Unlike the mail in Loma, which has a secular purpose other than to advance religion.

Now you know…and knowing is half the battle.

If you were ever wondering which of the carter kids had the brains, now ya know.

someday when i need an attorney more than food or water, i’m gonna be super glad she went to law school.

ok, so even though it might be within the letter of the law, do you think it’s within the spirit of the law?

Hey, don’t shoot the messenger.

There are two quite distinct clauses in the 1st A pertaining to religion. We have the establishment clause that prohibits any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The main purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent gov from endorsing or supporting religion. However, the second clause is the Free Exercise Clause.

That clause bars any law “prohibiting the free exercise of religion”. It’s designed to prevent the gov from outlawing or seriously burdening a person’s pursuit of whatever religion he chooses.

These clauses conflict at times, and when they do, the Free Exercise Clause usually trumps. BUT when a DISPLAY with religious themes is either put on by the government, or put on by private groups using gov property, there is a potential Establishment Clause problem.

Here, the license plate reads “I believe”, not “we believe”. If it were the latter, it wouldn’t pass. Further, if it were the State plate and required (instead of optional), we would have several constitutional problems (including, but not limited to compelled speech). However, the only thing that connects it with the government is that the government is supplying the plates. And to prohibit that message might be a Free Exercise problem. The point is, the government can’t choose one religion over another — so the “Save the Whales” plates could TECHNICALLY be referred to as a “religion”. So if they allowed one over the other, that would be unconstitutional.

So, really it could go both ways, but I’m guessing that, since it is optional, it wouldn’t be unconstitutional. However, if a reasonable person would believe that the government is endorsing Christianity (and no other religions are available), it might be deemed unconstitutional.

It is important to note that the supreme court usually flies by the seat of their pants and makes up standards as they go along. The court could look at this with disgust or they could equate it with people buying bumper stickers that say “real men love jesus” — it really is a toss up.