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 statements: (A) holding that federal law can provide source of state public policy for determining whether discharge of employee violated clear mandate of public policy (B) holding that a vanity plate is a designated public forum where a state allows groups to place various slogans and designs on license plates (C) 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 (D) holding that a vanity plate is not a public forum (E) holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy
(C)