Kleinman v. City of San Marcos
597 F.3d 323 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A content-neutral municipal ordinance that incidentally burdens expressive conduct is constitutional under the First Amendment if it passes intermediate scrutiny by furthering a substantial government interest unrelated to the suppression of expression and is narrowly tailored to that interest.
Facts:
- Michael Kleinman, owner of Planet K novelty stores, held a 'car bash' to celebrate a new store opening in San Marcos, Texas, where an Oldsmobile 88 was smashed with sledgehammers.
- The wrecked car was then filled with dirt, planted with native cacti, and placed in front of the store, visible from Interstate 35.
- Two artists, Scott Wade and John Furly Travis, were commissioned to paint the car with scenes of local life and, at Kleinman's request, the phrase 'make love not war.'
- Wade intended the art to critique American car culture and the link between gasoline and war, while Travis intended to show that something beautiful could be made from junk.
- The City of San Marcos repeatedly issued tickets to Planet K under an ordinance that defines a 'junked vehicle' as a public nuisance and prohibits keeping one on private property if it is visible to the public.
- The ordinance defines a junked vehicle as inoperable and either lacking plates/inspection, wrecked/dismantled, or inoperable for more than 45 consecutive days.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of San Marcos ticketed Planet K for violating a junked-vehicle ordinance.
- Kleinman contested the tickets in the San Marcos municipal court, which is a court of first instance.
- The municipal court found the car-planter was a junked vehicle and ordered it to be removed or concealed from public view.
- Kleinman (plaintiff) filed a suit for injunctive relief against the City (defendant) in a Texas state trial court.
- The City removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
- The artists, Wade and Travis, joined the suit as plaintiffs to assert claims under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA).
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the City, finding no First Amendment or VARA violation, and ordered the plaintiffs to comply with the municipal court's order.
- Kleinman, Wade, and Travis (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a content-neutral municipal ordinance prohibiting the public display of 'junked vehicles' violate the First Amendment when applied to a wrecked car that has been converted into an artistic planter and sculpture?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, C.J.
No, applying the junked-vehicle ordinance to the car-planter does not violate the First Amendment. Although the car-planter contains some expressive content, its qualities as a utilitarian device, an advertisement, and a 'junked vehicle' objectively dominate any expressive component. Because the 'speech' and 'non-speech' elements are combined, the ordinance is subject to intermediate scrutiny under the O'Brien test. The ordinance passes this test because: (1) regulating junked vehicles is within the city's police power; (2) it furthers substantial government interests in public health, safety, and preventing urban blight; (3) this interest is unrelated to suppressing expression, making the ordinance content-neutral; and (4) the restriction on expression is no greater than essential. The ordinance is narrowly tailored as it only requires the vehicle to be enclosed from public view, not destroyed, leaving ample alternative channels for expression, such as displaying it indoors or behind a fence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of First Amendment principles to objects that blend artistic expression with utilitarian function, particularly when they fall under public nuisance regulations. By applying intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny, the court affirms that general, content-neutral health and safety ordinances can constitutionally regulate expressive conduct, provided the regulation is reasonably tailored. This precedent establishes that an object's classification as 'art' does not grant it automatic immunity from neutral laws, and courts will weigh the object's dominant characteristics and the government's regulatory interests. The case guides lower courts in balancing property owners' expressive rights against a municipality's legitimate power to combat urban blight and ensure public safety.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Kleinman v. City of San Marcos (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"