Utah Supreme Court
What standard must Utah agencies use when interpreting their own administrative rules? McBride v. Motor Vehicle Division Explained
Summary
Native American residents petitioned the Motor Vehicle Division to revoke personalized license plates containing the word ‘redskin,’ claiming the term was offensive and derogatory. The Tax Commission denied the petition, with commissioners applying different standards ranging from their personal opinions to general public perception.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Native American residents Michael McBride and Jay Brummett petitioned the Utah Motor Vehicle Division to revoke three personalized license plates containing variations of the word “redskin.” The petitioners argued that this term violated Utah Code Ann. § 41-1a-411 and Utah Administrative Code R873-22M-34 by carrying connotations that were offensive, derogatory, and expressed contempt toward their race and ethnic heritage. The license plate owners testified they were merely expressing support for the Washington Redskins football team without intent to offend.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was what standard the Tax Commission should apply when determining whether personalized license plates contain prohibited connotations under its administrative rules. The commissioners had applied different tests: some relied on their personal opinions, one looked to general public perception, and another argued that offense to “some people” should be sufficient grounds for revocation.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court found that none of the standards applied by the commissioners were reasonable. The court held that relying on personal opinions of individual commissioners would be arbitrary and capricious, while depending solely on general public perception could ignore offensive connotations unknown to the broader public. Similarly, allowing any group to veto license plates based on claimed offense would be unworkable. The court established that the proper standard is whether an objective, reasonable person would conclude that the term contains prohibited connotations.
Practice Implications
This decision demonstrates the importance of agencies applying consistent, objective standards when interpreting their own rules. Even when agencies possess statutory discretion, they cannot rely on arbitrary personal opinions or inconsistent application of their regulations. Practitioners challenging agency decisions should focus on whether the agency applied a reasonable and rational interpretation of its own rules, particularly when commissioners reach different conclusions using different standards for the same regulatory language.
Case Details
Case Name
McBride v. Motor Vehicle Division
Citation
1999 UT 9
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 960422
Date Decided
January 29, 1999
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
The Utah State Tax Commission must apply an objective reasonable person standard when determining whether personalized license plates contain prohibited connotations under its administrative rules.
Standard of Review
Substantial evidence standard for written findings of fact; correction of error standard for conclusions of law; reasonableness standard for agency actions when legislature grants discretion
Practice Tip
When challenging agency interpretations of their own rules, focus on whether the agency applied a reasonable and consistent standard rather than arbitrary personal opinions of individual commissioners.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.