|
|
Linmark Assocs., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)
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.
Linmark Assocs., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro No. 70-357 Argued March 2, 1977 Decided May 2, 1977 431 U.S. 85
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Syllabus
A township ordinance prohibiting the posting of real estate "For Sale" and "Sold" signs for the purpose of stemming what the township perceived as the flight of white homeowners from a racially integrated community held to violate the First Amendment. Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748. Pp. 91-98.
(a) The ordinance cannot be sustained on the ground that it restricts only one method of communication while leaving ample alternative communication channels open. The alternatives (primarily newspaper advertising and listing with real estate agents, which involve more cost and less autonomy than signs, are less likely to reach persons not deliberately seeking sales information, and may be less effective) are far from satisfactory. And the ordinance is not genuinely concerned with the place (front lawns) or the manner (signs) of the speech, but rather proscribes particular types of signs based on their content because the township fears their "primary" effect -- that they will cause those receiving the information to act upon it. Pp. 93-94.
(b) Moreover, despite the importance of achieving the asserted goal of promoting stable, integrated housing, the ordinance cannot be upheld on the ground that it promotes an important governmental objective, since it does not appear that the ordinance was needed to achieve that objective and, in any event, the First Amendment disables the township from achieving that objective by restricting the free flow of truthful commercial information. Pp. 94-97.
535 F.2d 786, reversed.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined except REHNQUIST, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Linmark Assocs., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977) in 431 U.S. 85 431 U.S. 86. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=W54YSMG86KYZS2P.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Linmark Assocs., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977), in 431 U.S. 85, page 431 U.S. 86. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=W54YSMG86KYZS2P.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Linmark Assocs., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977). cited in 1977, 431 U.S. 85, pp.431 U.S. 86. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=W54YSMG86KYZS2P.
|