1974 United States Supreme Court case
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights |
---|
|
Argued February 26–27, 1974 Decided June 25, 1974 |
---|
Full case name | Lehman v. Shaker Heights |
---|
Citations | 418 U.S. 298 (more) 94 S. Ct. 2714; 41 L. Ed. 2d 770 |
---|
Case history |
---|
Prior | Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 34 Ohio St. 2d 143, 296 N.E.2d 683 (1973); cert. granted, 414 U.S. 1021 (1973) |
---|
Holding |
---|
Advertising space on a city transit system is not a public forum, and a city's decision to ban political advertising in this space does not violate the First Amendment. |
Court membership |
---|
- Chief Justice
- Warren E. Burger
- Associate Justices
- William O. Douglas · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist |
Case opinions |
---|
Plurality | Blackmun, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist |
---|
Concurrence | Douglas |
---|
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Stewart, Marshall, Powell |
---|
Laws applied |
---|
U.S. Const. Amend. I |
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld a city's ban on political advertising within its public transportation system. The Court ruled that ad space on public transit is not a "public forum", meaning that speech within this space receives lower First Amendment protections.[1]
Background
The City of Shaker Heights, Ohio sold advertising space on its rapid transit system. The City forbade political advertising on rapid transit cars. However, other types of businesses and organizations could buy advertising space.
In 1970, Harry Lehman, a candidate for the Ohio House of Representatives, wished to purchase advertising space on the rapid transit system to publicize his campaign. He sued the City, claiming the unequal treatment of commercial and political advertising violated the First Amendment.
The Ohio Supreme Court sided with Shaker Heights, ruling that the freedom of speech does not extend to commercial or political advertising on public transit vehicles.[2]
Opinion of the Court
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled for Shaker Heights, upholding the ban on political advertising.
Writing for four justices, Harry Blackmun wrote that a rapid transit car is not a public forum, and speech there is subject to a lower level of protection. "The nature of the forum" is "important in determining the degree of protection."[3] In running a rapid transit system, the City is principally "engaged in commerce." The provision of advertising space is "incidental to the provision of public transportation." Thus, speech restrictions designed to keep the rapid transit system "convenient, pleasant, and inexpensive" are justified as long as such restrictions are not "arbitrary, capricious, or invidious."[4]
Blackmun pointed out that, unlike pedestrians in a traditional public forum such as a park or street corner, commuters are a captive audience. Thus, the City has an interest in protecting commuters from the "blare of political propaganda." Other public interests include avoiding "the appearance of favoritism," and steering clear of controversies that might arise when "parceling out limited space to eager politicians."[5] The City was also entitled to determine how best to generate revenue from the public transit system. "The decision [to ban political advertising] is little different from deciding to impose a 10¢, 25¢, or 35¢ fare."[5]
Justice William Douglas concurred. He stressed that public transit is a "practical necessity" for millions of Americans, making such commuters a "captive audience." Douglas argued that there is no First Amendment right to speak to a captive audience; thus the City should have authority to restrict speech within the cars, whether political or commercial.[6]
Justice William Brennan dissented, joined by three other justices. Brennan believed the City had created a public forum when it accepted commercial advertising in the cars.[7] Since, in Brennan's view, the transit system was a public forum, the First Amendment prohibited "discrimination based solely on subject matter or content."[8]
See also
- Law portal
References
- ^ Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974).
- ^ Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 34 Ohio St. 2d 143, 296 N.E.2d 683 (1973).
- ^ Lehman, 418 U.S. at 302–303.
- ^ Lehman, 418 U.S. at 303.
- ^ a b Lehman, 418 U.S. at 304.
- ^ Lehman, 418 U.S. at 308 (Douglas, J., concurring).
- ^ Lehman, 418 U.S. at 310 (Brennan, J. dissenting).
- ^ Lehman, 418 U.S. at 315 (Brennan, J. dissenting).
External links
- Text of Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) is available from: CourtListener Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
|
---|
Public displays and ceremonies | |
---|
Statutory religious exemptions | |
---|
Public funding | |
---|
Religion in public schools | |
---|
Private religious speech | |
---|
Internal church affairs | |
---|
Taxpayer standing | |
---|
Blue laws | |
---|
Other | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Unprotected speech | Incitement and sedition | |
---|
Libel and false speech | |
---|
Fighting words and the heckler's veto | |
---|
True threats | |
---|
Obscenity | - Rosen v. United States (1896)
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
- Roth v. United States (1957)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
- Smith v. California (1959)
- Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
- MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
- Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
- Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
- Redrup v. New York (1967)
- Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
- Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
- United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
- Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
- Miller v. California (1973)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
- Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
- Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
- Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
- Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
- American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
- People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
- Reno v. ACLU (1997)
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
- City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
- United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
- Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
- United States v. Williams (2008)
- American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Stevens (2010)
- Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
|
---|
Speech integral to criminal conduct | |
---|
|
---|
Strict scrutiny | |
---|
Vagueness | |
---|
Symbolic speech versus conduct | |
---|
Content-based restrictions | |
---|
Content-neutral restrictions | |
---|
Compelled speech | |
---|
Compelled subsidy of others' speech | |
---|
Government grants and subsidies | |
---|
Government as speaker | |
---|
Loyalty oaths | |
---|
School speech | |
---|
Public employees | |
---|
Hatch Act and similar laws | |
---|
Licensing and restriction of speech | |
---|
Commercial speech | - Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
- Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
- Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
- Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
- Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
- Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
- Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
- In re Primus (1978)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
- Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
- In re R.M.J. (1982)
- Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
- Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
- Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
- State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
- Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
- Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
- United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
- Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
- Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
- Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
- 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
- Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
- Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
- Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
- United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
- Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
- Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
- Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
- Vidal v. Elster (2024)
|
---|
Campaign finance and political speech | |
---|
Anonymous speech | |
---|
State action | |
---|
Official retaliation | |
---|
Boycotts | |
---|
Prisons | |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Organizations | |
---|
Future Conduct | |
---|
Solicitation | |
---|
Membership restriction | |
---|
Primaries and elections | |
---|
|
|
|