466 U.S. 789 (1984)
The appellate court concluded that the ordinance was vulnerable to an overbreadth challenge because it was an overinclusive response to traffic concerns and not the least drastic means of preventing interference with the normal use of public property.
- However, the Supreme Court concluded that the case was not an appropriate case to entertain a facial challenge based on overbreadth.
- The Court found nothing in the record to indicate that the ordinance would have any different impact on any third parties' interests in free speech than it had on appellees.
- The Court determined that appellant's interest in avoiding visual clutter was sufficiently substantial to provide an acceptable justification for a content-neutral prohibition against the posting of signs on public property.
- The Court also determined that the scope of the restriction on appellees' expressive activity was not substantially broader than necessary to protect appellant's interest in eliminating visual clutter.
- By banning the signs, appellant did no more than eliminate the exact source of the evil it sought to remedy.
- The ordinance curtailed no more speech than was necessary to accomplish its purpose.
The Court found the challenged ordinance constitutional, reversed the judgment of the appellate court, and remanded the case to that court.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.