Lehman v. City Of Shaker Heights

Media Items
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Leonard J. Schwartz (argued the cause for the petitioner)
Paul R. Donaldson (argued the cause for the respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
73-328
Petitioner: 
Harry Lehman
Respondent: 
City Of Shaker Heights
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1972-1975)
Opinion: 
418 U.S. 298 (1974)
Categories: 
elections, freedom of speech

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Lehman v. City Of Shaker Heights , 418 U.S. 298 (1974)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_328)
Facts of the Case: 

Harry Lehman was running for the Ohio House of Representatives in the 56th District, which included the city of Shaker Heights. Lehman wanted to have his campaign advertisements placed on the side of Shaker Heights' streetcars. Metromedia, Inc. was designated by the city to manage that advertising space. Metromedia's contract with the city prohibited it from placing political advertisements on the streetcars. It was allowed, however, to place advertisements from businesses and public service groups. Lehman's request was denied, and he sued in the Ohio Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County alleging that Shaker Heights' policy violated his free speech rights. The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled for the city. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the decision.

Question: 

Did Shaker Heights' policy against political advertising on its streetcars violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Ohio and found no violation of the First or Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for a plurality of four justices, Justice Harry A. Blackmun asserted that "no First Amendment forum is here to be found," as the streetcars did not qualify as a "public thoroughfare." Accordingly, the city "need not accept every proffer of advertising." The city could reject certain types of advertising as long as the policies were not "arbitrary, capricious, or invidious." Given the "reasonable legislative objectives" of minimizing "chances of abuse, the appearance of favoritism, and the risk of imposing upon a captive audience," Shaker Heights' policy was not unconstitutional.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for City Of Shaker Heights, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Burger
Wrote a special concurrence
Douglas
Wrote a dissent
Brennan
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
Stewart
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
Marshall
Wrote the judgment of the Court
Blackmun
Voted with the minority, joined Brennan's dissent
Powell
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist

Judgment of the Court by Justice Harry A. Blackmun