Lehman v. City of Shaker HeightsAnnotate this Case
418 U.S. 298 (1974)
U.S. Supreme Court
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (1974)
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights
Argued February 26-27, 1974
Decided June 25, 1974
418 U.S. 298
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. 418 U. S. 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. 418 U. S. 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. 418 U. S. 305. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 418 U. S. 308.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.