Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights

Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentPublic forumPolitical advertisingFirst AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentpublic forumpolitical advertising

Facts

Harry J. Lehman, a candidate for the Ohio General Assembly, sought to buy advertising space on the Shaker Heights Rapid Transit System for the months before the 1970 general election. Metromedia, the city's exclusive advertising agent, refused because its contract with the city prohibited political advertising on the transit cars. The transit system accepted commercial and service-oriented ads from entities such as cigarette companies, banks, liquor companies, retail establishments, churches, and civic and public-service groups. Uncontradicted trial testimony showed that during 26 years of public operation the system had not accepted any political or public issue advertising on its vehicles.

Issue

Whether a city that operates a public rapid transit system and sells advertising space on its vehicles is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to accept paid political advertising on behalf of a candidate for public office.

Rule

Advertising space on a municipally operated transit system is not a First Amendment public forum merely because the city sells commercial advertising there. When the city acts in a proprietary, commercial capacity, it may make reasonable choices about the type of advertising displayed, so long as its policies are not arbitrary, capricious, or invidious.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City of Dayton operates its own light-rail system and sells poster space inside train cars through a contract with Lakeview Transit Media. For 18 years, the system has accepted only commercial ads and service-oriented messages, while uniformly rejecting all candidate and ballot-measure advertisements.

A city council candidate in Dayton seeks to buy interior ad space for a campaign poster and is denied under the policy. Under the governing rule, which is the strongest argument that the denial is constitutional?

Explanation. The majority treated transit advertising space as unlike streets, parks, and other traditional public fora. Because the city was acting in a proprietary commercial capacity, it could make reasonable choices about the type of advertising displayed, so long as the policy was not arbitrary, capricious, or invidious. The Court did not say campaign speech loses protection, nor that revenue production eliminates constitutional limits, nor that mere disagreement with a message is enough.