The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case on whether states can ticket drivers for honking a horn after a California woman argued using a car horn is protected speech under the First Amendment.
In a brief order issued Monday morning, the Supreme Court rejected hearing the case without comment.
The appeal to the high court was brought by Susan Porter of California, who received a ticket in 2017 for honking her car’s horn in support of a group rallying outside the office of her congressman — Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). The group was protesting Issa’s support for former President Trump.
The ticket was eventually dismissed, but Porter argued a California traffic law, which bans excessive car honking other than for ensuring the safety of a vehicle, violates the Constitution. California is one of at least 41 states that has a law limiting the use of car horns.
A three-judge panel with the 9th Circuit Court in California upheld this law in a 2-1 ruling last year in response to Porter’s challenge.
“The Ninth Circuit’s opinion reflects a continuing dilution of First Amendment protection for symbolic speech,” Porter’s lawyers wrote in their appeal to the nation’s highest court.
Porter argued car horns have been used to express political views since the creation of the automobile and claimed both President Biden and Trump "have recognized honking as a form of political expression, illustrating the car horn’s ubiquity in modern American politics."
Her appeal pointed to one of Biden’s drive-in rallies in 2020, during which he said, “honk if you want America to lead again. Honk if you want America to trust each other again. Honk if you want to be united again.”
“Every day across this country, motorists use their vehicles’ horns to express themselves when passing roadside picket lines, demonstrations, and protests,” her lawyers wrote. “Such ‘honks’ not only operate as means for the motorist to communicate their support to their fellow citizens but also to amplify their fellow citizens’ cause. The car horn is the sound of democracy in action.”
Porter’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to reaffirm the “intermediate scrutiny,” upheld in United States v. O’Brien, which created a test to determine if government regulation relating to symbolic speech is justified. The 9th Circuit found California’s law passed intermediate scrutiny.
The Supreme Court has ruled free speech protection does extend to other forms of expression beyond the spoken word. While the 9th Circuit Court’s 2-1 majority said car honking can be expressive conduct, it argued the law furthers California’s interest in traffic safety and deemed the law as constitutional.
The dissenting judge said she would block the enforcement of the law to permit “political protest honking.”
The Hill has reached out to Porter’s lawyers for comment.
