|
|
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974)
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights No. 73-328 Argued February 26-27, 1974 Decided June 25, 1974 418 U.S. 298
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Syllabus
Petitioner, a candidate for state office, who was refused available advertising space on vehicles of a city transit system, brought this suit challenging the constitutionality of the municipal policy on which the refusal was based of not permitting political advertising but allowing other types of public transit advertising. The state courts declined to give petitioner relief, the Ohio Supreme Court holding that the city’s refusal did not violate a candidate’s free speech or equal protection rights.
Held: The judgment is affirmed. Pp. 302-308.
34 Ohio St.2d 143, 296 N.E.2d 683, affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE WHITE, and MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concluded that car card space on a city transit system is not a First Amendment forum, and that here the decision to limit transit advertisements to innocuous and less controversial commercial and service-oriented advertising -- thus minimizing chances of abuse, appearances of political favoritism, and the risk of imposing upon a captive audience -- is within the city’s discretion, and involves no First or Fourteenth Amendment violation. Pp. 302-304.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS concluded that petitioner, though free to express his views to a willing audience, has no constitutional right to force his message upon a captive audience, which uses public transit vehicles not as a place for discussion, but only as a means of transport. Pp. 305-308
BLACKMUN, J., announced the Court’s judgment and delivered an opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 305. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 308.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974) in 418 U.S. 298 418 U.S. 299. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R3GJI7EP87P8U22.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974), in 418 U.S. 298, page 418 U.S. 299. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R3GJI7EP87P8U22.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974). cited in 1974, 418 U.S. 298, pp.418 U.S. 299. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R3GJI7EP87P8U22.
|