Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent case brief
summary
466 U.S. 789 (1984)
CASE FACTS
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.
DISCUSSION
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
.
466 U.S. 789 (1984)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellees, a political corporation and
a political sign service company, filed an action alleging that
appellant city's ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs on public
property violated their freedom of speech within the meaning of
the First Amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit held that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its
face. Appellant challenged the judgment.CASE FACTS
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.
DISCUSSION
- 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
No comments:
Post a Comment