Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Valentine v. Chrestensen

Supreme Court of the United States · 1942 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawFreedom of SpeechFreedom of the PressCommercial AdvertisingFirst AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentcommercial speechhandbills

Facts

Respondent owned a former United States Navy submarine that he exhibited for profit in New York City. He first prepared a handbill advertising the submarine and soliciting visitors for an admission fee, but police advised that distributing commercial advertising matter in the streets would violate § 318 of the Sanitary Code, though handbills devoted solely to information or public protest could be distributed. Respondent then prepared a double-faced handbill with commercial advertising on one side and a protest against the City Dock Department's refusal to provide wharfage facilities on the other. Police advised that a handbill containing only the protest would be allowed, but that the double-faced bill was prohibited; when respondent distributed it anyway, police restrained him.

Issue

Whether applying New York City's ordinance barring street distribution of commercial and business advertising matter to respondent's double-faced handbill unconstitutionally abridged freedom of speech or of the press. More specifically, the question was whether attaching a protest message to an advertising circular brought the distribution within constitutional protection.

Rule

Public streets are proper places for communicating information and disseminating opinion, and government may not unduly burden or proscribe that use. But the Constitution imposes no such restraint with respect to purely commercial advertising, and legislatures may decide whether promoting a gainful occupation in the streets is an undesirable interference with the public's use of streets. A speaker cannot avoid a valid prohibition on distributing commercial advertising by attaching protest or informational material for the purpose of evasion.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Cleveland, Lila Moreno owns a private observation deck on a docked historic barge and charges admission. She stands on a downtown sidewalk handing out leaflets that list visiting hours, attractions, and ticket prices. A city ordinance bars street distribution of commercial and business advertising matter but does not prohibit leaflets devoted solely to information or opinion.

If Lila challenges the ordinance under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, what is the strongest answer?

Explanation. The majority drew a sharp distinction between dissemination of information and opinion in the streets, which receives constitutional protection, and purely commercial advertising, which it said government may prohibit from street distribution. The legislature may judge that promoting a gainful occupation in the streets interferes with the public use of highways. Because Lila's leaflets advertise a paid attraction, the ban may be constitutionally applied.