Judge Rogers authored a notable majority opinion in "ACLU v. Bredesen", 441 F.3d 370 (6th Cir. 2006). Over the dissent of Circuit Judge Boyce Martin, Judge Rogers held that specialty license plates bearing a government-controlled message qualify as "government speech." Such license plates, as a result, do not create a "forum" for speech that is subject to First Amendment viewpoint-neutrality requirements. In "Bredesen", the Tennessee state legislature had authorized a "Choose Life" license plate but had rejected during legislative consideration a license plate with a conflicting message. The majority opinion authored by Judge Rogers held that "the medium in this case, a government-issued license plate that every reasonable person knows to be government-issued, . . . conveys a government message." The First Amendment, the opinion reasoned, does not require state governments to issue contradictory messages to remain viewpoint neutral. For instance, a government entity that gives out "Register and Vote" pins is not compelled by the Constitution to issue "Don't Vote" pins. In the years following "Bredesen", every other circuit court to address the issue disagreed with its interpretation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit observed as follows in an opinion holding that specialty license plates are not government speech: "The Sixth Circuit's conclusion that specialty license plates are government speech makes it the sole outlier among our sister circuits." "Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Vandergriff", 759 F.3d 388, 396 (5th Cir. 2014). The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently granted "certiorari" and reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision in "Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc". In an opinion that echoed the "Bredesen" ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that specialty license plates are government speech.