A city enacts an ordinance that bans the display of any banners containing political messages on public sidewalks. A local environmental group challenges the ordinance, claiming it violates their First Amendment rights. How is the ordinance most likely to be evaluated under the First Amendment?
The ordinance is subject to intermediate scrutiny and will be upheld if it substantially advances an important government interest.
The ordinance is subject to rational basis review and will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
The ordinance is subject to strict scrutiny and will be upheld if it serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored.
The ordinance is unconstitutional because it restricts political speech.
Content-based regulations of speech are subject to strict scrutiny. The court will examine whether the ordinance serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. If the ordinance lacks these elements, it is likely unconstitutional. Other standards, like intermediate or rational basis review, are not applicable to content-based restrictions on protected speech.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is strict scrutiny in relation to First Amendment cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of content-based restrictions on speech?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes a compelling government interest?