In the case of Mark E. Dennis v. Margaret L. Higgins, Director, Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles et al., 1990, Dennis challenged the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute that automatically revoked his driver's license for three years following a conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). He argued that this violated his right to due process and equal protection under law as he was not given an opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation or show cause why revocation should not occur. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that automatic revocation did not violate constitutional rights because driving is considered a privilege rather than a fundamental right and therefore can be regulated by states in order to protect public safety.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mark E. Dennis v. Margaret L. Higgins, Director, Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring motorists to display license plates with a state motto violated First Amendment rights by compelling speech. The dissenters contended that forcing individuals to promote an ideological message they may not agree with is unconstitutional and infringes upon their freedom of thought and expression. They also disagreed with the majority's view that displaying a state motto on license plates does not constitute expressive activity protected under the First Amendment, arguing instead that it should be considered as such because it involves conveying an idea or message.