Margaret Gilleo is a homeowner in a St. Louis suburb. In December 1990, she placed a 24- by 36-inch sign on her lawn expressing opposition to Operation Desert Storm. She contacted police after her sign was stolen on one occasion and knocked down on another occasion. Police officials told Margaret that her signs were prohibited by city ordinance. Margaret unsuccessfully petitioned the city council for a variance, and then filed suit. In her civil rights action, she maintained that the city ordinance violated her First Amendment right of freedom of speech, which was applicable to the state through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The U.S. District Court agreed and enjoined the enforcement of the ordinance. Margaret then placed an 8½- by 11-inch sign in an upstairs window indicating her desire for “Peace in the Gulf.” The city, in the meantime, repealed its original ordinance and replaced it with an ordinance that prohibited all signs that did not fit within ten authorized exemptions. The ordinance’s preamble indicated that its purpose was to improve aesthetics and protect property values within the city. Margaret’s peace sign did not fit within any of the authorized exemptions. She amended her complaint and challenged the new ordinance because it prohibited her from expressing her opposition to the war. The city defended by arguing that its ordinance was
Content neutral and its purposes justified the limited number of exemptions. It noted that
Alternative methods of communication, such as hand-held signs, pamphlets, flyers, etc., were permissible under the ordinance. How would you decide this case?