Facts
- Mazdabrook Commons is a 194-unit planned townhouse community in Parsippany–Troy Hills, New Jersey, managed by a homeowners’ association governed by a board of trustees.
- Owners received governing documents that broadly prohibited signs on or in units and common facilities without prior written board consent; in practice, the policy permitted only one “For Sale” sign and barred virtually all other signs.
- Wasim Khan, a unit owner, ran for local office in 2005 and placed two political campaign signs inside his townhouse (in a window and behind a glass door) so they were visible from outside.
- The association notified Khan that the signs violated its rules and ordered their removal; Khan complied.
- In later litigation over unpaid fees and fines, Khan counterclaimed that enforcement of the sign ban violated his free-speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution (and also invoked the federal constitution).
Issues
- Whether a homeowners’ association’s near-complete ban on residential signs, allowing essentially only “For Sale” signs, violates the free-speech clause of the New Jersey Constitution as applied to political signs displayed inside an owner’s home.
- Whether, under New Jersey doctrine governing speech rights on private property, the association’s conduct is subject to state constitutional free-speech limitations and, if so, what standard governs.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division.
- The Court held the association’s near-total sign prohibition was unconstitutional as applied to Khan’s political campaign signs displayed at his residence.
- Applying the Schmid factors and distinguishing Twin Rivers, the Court concluded the policy was unreasonably restrictive and oppressive in light of the minimal interference with the association’s property interests and the central importance of political speech at the home.
- The Court noted that reasonable sign regulations (e.g., size, number, duration, placement) may be permissible; the defect was the effective foreclosure of core political expression while permitting “For Sale” signs.
Legal Principles
- The New Jersey Constitution affirmatively protects free speech and may restrain certain private conduct when private restrictions are unreasonably restrictive and oppressive in settings addressed by New Jersey free-speech doctrine.
- Under State v. Schmid, courts evaluate free-speech claims on private property by considering: (1) the nature, purposes, and primary use of the property; (2) the extent and nature of the public’s invitation to use it; and (3) the purpose of the expressive activity in relation to private and public use.
- In common-interest communities, Twin Rivers permits reasonable, limited sign restrictions, but a near-complete ban that bars political signs at an owner’s home exceeds permissible regulation.
- A sign policy that allows commercial “For Sale” signs while prohibiting political signs is constitutionally suspect because it disfavors core political expression at the location where residential expression is most significant.
- Contractual covenants and homeowner “consent” in form community documents do not automatically validate restrictions that unreasonably abridge fundamental state constitutional speech rights.
Conclusion
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a homeowners’ association may not enforce a near-total ban on residential signs to prevent a homeowner from displaying political campaign signs inside his own home, because the minimal aesthetic and property interests asserted by the association did not justify suppressing core political speech protected by the state constitution.