Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro
52 L. Ed. 2d 155, 431 U.S. 85, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 81 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that bans the posting of truthful 'For Sale' and 'Sold' signs violates the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech, as a government cannot suppress the free flow of information to prevent citizens from acting upon it.
Facts:
- The Township of Willingboro was a racially integrated, middle-income community that experienced a decline in its white population and an increase in its nonwhite population between 1970 and 1973.
- Town officials and some residents believed this demographic shift was caused by 'panic selling' among white homeowners who feared declining property values.
- These officials and residents considered the prevalence of 'For Sale' and 'Sold' signs to be a major catalyst for these fears.
- On March 18, 1974, the Willingboro Township Council enacted Ordinance 5-1974, which banned the placement of 'For Sale' and 'Sold' signs on all residential property except model homes.
- Linmark Associates owned a property in Willingboro that it wished to sell.
- Linmark Associates and its real estate agent, Mellman, desired to place a 'For Sale' sign on the property to attract buyers but were prohibited from doing so by the ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- Linmark Associates and Mellman filed a suit against the Township of Willingboro in the United States District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the ordinance.
- The District Court (a federal trial court) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, issuing a declaration that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
- The Township of Willingboro appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- A divided Court of Appeals (an intermediate federal appellate court) reversed the trial court's judgment, upholding the ordinance.
- Linmark Associates and Mellman, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.
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 municipal ordinance that prohibits the posting of 'For Sale' and 'Sold' signs on residential property, enacted to stem the perceived flight of white homeowners from a racially integrated community, violate the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes, the ordinance violates the First Amendment. A municipality cannot constitutionally prohibit residents from posting truthful 'For Sale' signs for the purpose of controlling their actions, even when pursuing the important goal of promoting stable, integrated housing. The First Amendment protects the free flow of truthful commercial information, and the government's fear that citizens will act 'irrationally' upon receiving such information is not a sufficient justification for its suppression. Following the precedent set in Virginia Pharmacy Bd., this ordinance is unconstitutional because it attempts to achieve its objective by keeping residents ignorant. The proper remedy for potentially harmful speech is more speech and education, not enforced silence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech, specifically applying the principles of Virginia Pharmacy Bd. to real estate advertising. It establishes that a government's commendable purpose, such as promoting racial integration, cannot justify banning the dissemination of truthful information to prevent citizens from making choices the government disfavors. The ruling strongly rejects paternalistic government policies that restrict information to manipulate public behavior. It reinforces the core First Amendment principle that the remedy for potentially problematic speech is counterspeech and education, not censorship.
