## Facts

- Lakewood, Ohio enacted an ordinance requiring publishers to obtain annual permits to place newsracks on public property.
- The ordinance authorized the mayor to grant or deny permit applications and, if granted, to impose any “terms and conditions” the mayor deemed “necessary and reasonable.”
- If the mayor denied an application, the mayor was required only to state reasons for denial.
- Plain Dealer Publishing Co. did not apply for a permit and instead filed a facial First Amendment challenge alleging the ordinance vested unbridled discretion in the mayor.
- The federal district court upheld the ordinance and entered judgment for the city.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, concluding the scheme was unconstitutional because it gave the mayor unbounded discretion over approvals and conditions.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a publisher may bring a facial First Amendment challenge to a licensing ordinance regulating expressive activity without first applying for and being denied a permit.
2. Whether an ordinance regulating newsracks is facially unconstitutional when it grants a mayor broad, standardless discretion to grant, deny, or condition permits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals in a 4–3 decision.
- The Court held that when a licensing law gives an official unbridled discretion over expressive activity, a speaker may bring a facial challenge without first seeking a permit.
- The Court held the ordinance was facially invalid because it conferred unbridled discretion on the mayor, operating as a prior restraint that risks content- or viewpoint-based censorship and self-censorship.
- The Court recognized that cities may regulate newsracks through licensing and reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, but only under neutral, objective criteria that meaningfully constrain official discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A licensing scheme regulating expressive activity is a prior restraint if it vests unbridled discretion in a government official to permit, deny, or condition speech-related conduct.
- Facial review is permitted where a licensing law’s mere existence creates a real and substantial risk of censorship through self-censorship, even absent proof of actual discriminatory enforcement.
- Facial challenges to discretion-based licensing are appropriate only when the law has a sufficiently close nexus to expression to pose a substantial threat of censorship.
- To be constitutional, a licensing regime affecting expression must contain narrow, objective, and definite standards that constrain the licensor and allow effective judicial review for content or viewpoint discrimination.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Lakewood’s newsrack ordinance on its face because it subjected newspaper distribution on public property to an annual permit system governed by the mayor’s standardless discretion, creating an unconstitutional prior restraint and an unacceptable risk of censorship and self-censorship.


City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988)