South-Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South Suburban Board of Realtors

Rule of Law:

A municipal ordinance allowing residents to place their names on a non-solicitation list to prohibit real estate agents from contacting them does not violate the First Amendment. The government's substantial interest in protecting residential privacy outweighs the agents' right to commercial speech, especially when the regulation is narrowly tailored to affect only those who have affirmatively opted out.

Facts:

• Several south suburban Chicago municipalities were experiencing racial integration and feared resegregation, partly due to real estate practices.
• To protect resident privacy and prevent panic selling, municipalities including Country Club Hills, Hazel Crest, Matteson, and Glenwood enacted anti-solicitation ordinances.
• These ordinances established a system where a homeowner could formally notify the village clerk that they did not wish to be solicited by real estate agents.
• The villages then compiled and published lists of these homeowners who had opted out of receiving solicitations.
• The ordinances prohibited real estate agents from contacting any person on the list through in-person visits, mail, or telephone calls with the intent to induce a property sale or listing.
• The definition of "solicitation" specifically excluded advertisements in media of general circulation, such as newspapers.
• Shortly before trial, several of the municipalities sent letters to local real estate brokers stating that their interpretation of the ordinances would treat any business or promotional communication as a prohibited solicitation.

Procedural Posture:

• South-Suburban Housing Center (SSHC) originally sued the Greater South Suburban Board of Realtors (GSSBR) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
• The Realtors filed counterclaims and third-party complaints against several south suburban Chicago municipalities, challenging local ordinances that regulated real estate solicitation.
• The district court held an eight-week bench trial on the consolidated claims.
• The district court found that the anti-solicitation ordinances violated the First Amendment and were unconstitutionally vague.
• The municipalities, as appellants, appealed the district court's ruling on the constitutionality of the anti-solicitation ordinances to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.