City of Ladue v. Gilleo Case Brief

City of Ladue v. Gilleo 512 U.S. 43 (1994) • Gilleo owned a house in Ladue Missouri. She put up several signs protesting the first Gulf War on her property, but these were vandalized. When she went to the police, she was informed that a city ordinance prohibits placing signs in one's yard. • Gilleo applied for a variance to the city ordinance, but was denied. She sued on the grounds that the ordinance violated the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. • Technically, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to laws that are made by States. However, the US Supreme Court said that, under the 14th Amendment, the 1st Amendment applies to State laws. • The Trial Court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. Gilleo placed an anti-war sign in the window of her home. • The City Council repealed the ordinance and replaced it with a new one. The new ordinance did not allow for variances at all. • The ordinance also defined which types of signs were allowed, for example, most types of commercial signs were ok. • Gilleo amended her complaint to challenge the constitutionality of the new ordinance. • The Trial Court held the ordinance to be unconstitutional. Ladue appealed. • The Appellate Court affirmed. Ladue appealed. • The Appellate Court found that the ordinance was invalid as a " content based" regulation because the City treated commercial speech more favorably than noncommercial speech. • The US Supreme Court affirmed. • The Supreme Court acknowledged that municipalities have an interest in signs from a zoning and land use perspective. • The Supreme Court found that there are two ways in which sign banning can lead to violations of the 1st Amendment: • Ordinances that ban too little free speech by using exemptions to discriminate on the basis of the sign's message. • Ordinances that ban too much free speech, such as an outright ban on all signs. • The Supreme Court found that putting up signs in one's yard is a very important part of free speech and Ladue's ordinance banning all signs (which including political campaign ads btw) was clearly unconstitutional. • However, the Court did say that it was possible that you could construct an anti-sign regulation that wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment. Project Wonderful -Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0• For example, a regulation that banned all signs larger than a certain size.