an unconstitutional prior restraint on First Amendment expression for two reasons. First, Vermont’s vanity plates are a nonpublic forum and access is, by definition, selective. Second, as discussed in subsections II.A.2(a) and (b), ante, Vermont’s restrictions are reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. Vermont’s vanity-plate regime is governed by Vt. Ann. Stat. tit. 23, § 304(d) and by the state regulation implementing that provision — that is, vanity plates are issued subject to the granting of permission by an authorized state official. While § 304(d) grants the state the power to revoke “offensive” or “confusing” vanity plates, the regulation limits this discretion by specifying content and includes the right to a prerevocation hearing. Cf. Lewis v. Wilson, 253 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Because we have concluded that the
holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy holding that a vanity plate is a designated public forum where a state allows groups to place various slogans and designs on license plates holding that a state statute authorizing the rejection of vanity plates deemed contrary to public policy violated the first amendment because it granted unfettered discretion to state officials holding that a vanity plate is not a public forum holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy