Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro

Supreme Court of the United States · 1977 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCommercial SpeechFirst Amendmentcommercial speechcontent-based regulationFor Sale signstruthful information

Facts

Willingboro, New Jersey, enacted Ordinance 5-1974, which repealed prior authorization for "For Sale" and "Sold" signs on all but model homes. The township adopted the measure because officials and witnesses believed such signs contributed to "panic selling" by white homeowners who feared the community was becoming all black and that property values would decline. Linmark Associates wanted to place a "For Sale" sign on property it had listed with real estate agent Mellman, but the ordinance barred it from doing so. The record showed that sellers and agents used signs as an important means of reaching buyers, and the township offered no statistical proof that the ban actually reduced sales awareness or was necessary to maintain integration.

Issue

Does the First Amendment permit a municipality to prohibit truthful "For Sale" and "Sold" signs in order to reduce white flight and promote stable, racially integrated housing? More specifically, may the government suppress truthful commercial information because it fears residents will act on that information in ways the government regards as harmful?

Rule

Commercial speech is not wholly outside First Amendment protection, and a government may not suppress truthful, nonmisleading commercial information because it fears the information's primary effect on listeners will lead them to act against their own or the community's perceived interests. A regulation is not a valid time, place, or manner restriction when it targets particular signs based on content rather than regulating signs for reasons unrelated to the suppression of expression.

🔒

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.

In Columbus, Ohio, the city council forbids homeowners and brokers from placing truthful "Open Apartment" signs on residential buildings. Officials explain that public notice of vacancies will attract too many new arrivals and accelerate neighborhood turnover, though newspaper listings remain allowed.

If challenged under the First Amendment, which is the strongest argument against the ordinance?

Explanation. Truthful, nonmisleading commercial information about available housing is protected by the First Amendment. A government may not suppress that information simply because it fears the audience will respond in a way the government considers harmful. The majority rejected the idea that speech about realty gets less protection than other commercial information, and it also rejected the paternalistic rationale that residents should be denied truthful data to keep them from making undesired choices. (Derived from Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro (1977).)