The Village of Glendale, Ohio, enacted a local ordinance prohibiting anyone from parking a vehicle on a public road for the purpose of displaying it for sale. Christopher Pagan, a resident of Glendale, parked his car on a public street and posted a “For Sale” sign on the vehicle. A Glendale police officer warned Pagan to take down the sign or face a citation for violating the local ordinance. Pagan then filed suit against the Village of Glendale and Glendale’s chief of police, Matt Fruchey, claiming that the ordinance was an unconstitutional infringement of Pagan’s First Amendment commercial speech rights. The defendants asserted that Glendale had a substantial regulatory interest in traffic and pedestrian safety. The police chief testified as to his opinion regarding public safety, but Glendale did not present any empirical data or research at trial. After the trial court dismissed Pagan’s claim, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal because there was not a sufficient nexus or connection between Glendale’s asserted regulatory interest (public safety) and the local ordinance. 

CASE QUESTIONS 

1. Why didn’t the appeals court give more weight to the police chief’s opinion? 

2. What types of data do you suppose the court wanted from Glendale to support the village’s claim that the ordinance advanced its traffic safety interest? 

3. Should commercial speech receive the same level of protection as political speech?