Opinion ID: 657360
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commissioner's Limited Discretion

Text: 31 Graff argues that Chicago's newsstand ordinance violates the First Amendment by vesting too much discretion in the government official, here the commissioner of transportation. In Lakewood the Court struck down the City's ordinance because it vested too much discretion in the hands of a government official. 486 U.S. at 772, 108 S.Ct. at 2152. Graff argues that such a danger of viewpoint discrimination also exists in this case. 32 [A] licensing statute placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency constitutes a prior restraint and may result in censorship. Id. at 757, 108 S.Ct. at 2143. A major premise in Lakewood was that the Constitution requires that the City establish neutral criteria to insure that the licensing decision is not based on the content or viewpoint of the speech being considered. Id. at 760, 108 S.Ct. at 2146. The Court struck down the Lakewood ordinance specifically because there were no explicit limits on the Mayor's discretion. Id. at 769, 108 S.Ct. at 2150. In denying a permit application, the mayor was required only to state it is not in the public interest. Although the ordinance required the mayor to state his reasons, the Court found troubling the lack of specificity required and the limitless reasons the mayor could assert. Id. at 769-70, 108 S.Ct. at 2150-51. In granting a permit, the mayor could require the newsrack to be located in an inaccessible location without providing any explanation whatsoever. Id. This constituted unfettered discretion abridging the First Amendment. See FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 223, 110 S.Ct. at 603; Freedman, 380 U.S. at 56, 85 S.Ct. at 737 (party can challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741-42, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1939) (the offending statute subjected the defendant to harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials). 33 In this case the commissioner of transportation considers six exclusive criteria by which to grant or deny permission to build a newsstand: 34 (1) Whether the design, materials and color scheme of the newspaper stand comport with and enhance the quality and character of the streetscape, including nearby development and existing land uses; (2) Whether the newspaper stand complies with this code; (3) Whether the applicant has previously operated a newspaper stand at that location; (4) The extent to which services that would be offered by the newspaper stand are already available in the area; (5) The number of daily publications proposed to be sold from the newspaper stand; and (6) The size of the stand relative to the number of days the stand will be open and operating. 5 35 Chicago Mun.Code Sec. 10-28-160(a). The ordinance also contains a number of technical considerations, such as application forms, id. at -150, size and location regulations, id. at -170, and maintenance requirements, id. at -180. Graff specifically alleges that the commissioner should not be given discretion to remove a newsstand that endangers public safety or property, that interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or is placed in such a manner as to impede or interfere with the reasonable use of [a display window]. Id. at -185(a) & (b). 36 By requiring the commissioner to consider these factors, his discretion is limited, not unbridled. The criteria give adequate and specific guidance to the commissioner as well as reasons for the applicant to anticipate the basis for granting or denying a particular permit to build a newsstand. If a permit to build a newsstand were denied, these express standards (and the commissioner's written reasons, see id. at -160(c)) give the plaintiff adequate guidance in challenging the application of the ordinance to his particular case, and upon judicial review allow an informed inquiry into whether the commissioner made his decision in an unconstitutional manner, such as by disfavoring certain speech. 37 Even though the ordinance allows the commissioner to use some discretion, Lakewood nevertheless required the law to have a close enough nexus to expression, or to conduct commonly associated with expression, to pose a real and substantial threat of the identified censorship risks. 486 U.S. at 759, 108 S.Ct. at 2145 (emphasis added). The criteria set out in Chicago's ordinance in no sense pose a real or substantial threat of censorship. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 at 794-95, 109 S.Ct. 2746 at 2755-56 (upholding as content-neutral regulations aimed at achieving the best musical volume and sound or appropriate sound quality in light of surrounding neighborhoods). Jacobsen v. Crivaro, 851 F.2d 1067, 1070 (8th Cir.1988) (upholding as non-discretionary an ordinance restricting newsrack locations and sizes). The criteria give the commissioner proper authority to advance the city's desire to permit a given number of newsstands. At the same time they help avoid the threat of someone building a permanent newsstand of whatever size, design and location he chooses. 38 Graff still finds a problem with what he terms the commissioner's unbridled discretion in determining the number of permits to issue. But the ordinance caps the number of permits the commissioner may issue to the number of newsstands already located on Chicago's streets. Chicago Mun.Code Sec. 10-28-130 (No new permit for a newspaper stand shall be issued on or after the effective date of this ordinance). As permits expire, or have been revoked, the commissioner may advertise that a permit is available. Id. at -130 & -135. Graff and others may compete for those the commissioner chooses to reissue. Id. at -160(e). 6 39 True, the commissioner has discretion in determining how many permits to reissue. But that is the business of government. Chicago Observer, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 929 F.2d 325, 329 (7th Cir.1991). Not all discretionary decisions implicate the First Amendment. See City of Cincinnati, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1517 (the City may limit the total number of newsracks for safety and aesthetic reasons). Since the limited discretion given to the commissioner in Chicago's ordinance does not in any way limit the speech content of the newsstand operator, there is no threat or risk of censorship which violates the First Amendment. 40