City of Ladue, et. Al. vs. Margaret P.

Gilleo
CITY OF LADUE, ET AL., petitioners
vs.
MARGARET P. GILLEO, defendant
512 US 43
June 13, 1994
Ponente: J. Stevens

FACTS
Margaret Gilleo (Gilleo) owns a single family home in the Willow Hill
Subdivision of Ladue, Missouri where on December 8, 1990 she
placed a 24x36 inch sign printed with the words SAY NO TO WAR
IN THE PERSIAN GULF, CALL CONGRESS NOW. Sometime later, the
said sign disappeared which prompted Gilleo to put up another.
Unfortunately, the second sign was knocked down.
Gilleo reported the matter to the police and the latter advised her
that the signs are prohibited in Ladue. Thereafter, she filed an
action against the City contending that the ordinance prohibiting
the signs violated her right of free speech. The District Court issued
a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance.
As a result, Gilleo then placed an 8.5x11 sign in the window of her
home stating, FOR PEACE IN THE GULF.
Responding to the injunction, the City Council repealed its
ordinance and enacted a replacement ordering a general
prohibition of signs with exceptions such as, for residential
identification that are no larger than one square foot, for
advertising, for churches and schools, and commercial signs.
Moreover, the new ordinance recites that the proliferation of an
unlimited number of signs and would create ugliness and visual
clutter impairing the natural beauty of the landscape and property
values.
Gilleo amended her complaint and challenged the new ordinance.
ISSUE of the CASE

Whether the ordinance prohibiting signs transgresses Gilleos right

to freedom of free speech.

ACTIONS of the COURT

District Court: held that the ordinance unconstitutional
CA: affirmed. It was also held invalid as a content-based
regulation because the City treated commercial speech more
favorably than noncommercial speech and favored some kinds of
commercial speech over the others.
SC: decision of the district court and CA affirmed.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
Ladue has almost completely foreclosed a venerable means of
communication that is both unique and important. It has totally
foreclosed that medium to political, religious, or personal
messages. Signs that react to a local happening or express a view
on a controversial issue both reflect and animate change in the life
of a community.
Residential signs have been an important and distinct medium of
expression.
Even if Ladue contended that the ordinance is a mere regulation of
time, place, or manner that the residents remain free to convey
their desired messages by other means, it must leave an open
ample alternative channels for communication.
Displaying a sign from ones own residence often carries a message
quite distinct from placing the same sign someplace else, or
conveying the same text or picture by other means.
The residents have strong incentives to keep their own property
values up and to prevent visual clutter in their own yards and
neighborhoods incentives markedly different from those persons
who erect signs on others land, in others neighborhoods, or on
public property.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision appealed from is
affirmed.