26. Is this city ordinance constitutional?

In general, commercial speech does have some First Amendment protection. In determining whether a regulation of commercial speech is valid, there is a 4-step process: (i) initially, whether the commercial speech concerns a lawful activity that is not misleading or fraudulent; (ii) the regulation must serve a substantial government interest; (iii) it must directly advance that interest; and (iv) it must be narrowly tailored to serve the substantial interest. This fourth part of the test does not require that the least restrictive means be used. Rather, it must be a reasonable fit between the government interest and the means chosen. Bd. of Tr. of State Univ. of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989).

D is correct. Commercial speech, if it is not misleading or concerning unlawful activity, may only be regulated if the state shows that the regulation directly advances a substantial governmental interest in a way that is reasonably tailored to achieve that objective. In this case, protecting the streets from litter may be a substantial interest, but forbidding machines from dispensing publications consisting wholly of commercial advertisements is not a reasonable fit. Only ten percent of the machines were removed under this scheme, and there is no evidence that publications containing solely advertising will result in more litter per publication. Therefore, the ordinance would be unconstitutional.

A is incorrect. The test applicable here is whether the regulation directly advances a substantial governmental interest in a way that is reasonably tailored to achieve that objective. This answer choice is thus incorrect when it suggests that the regulation need only be rationally related to a legitimate state goal.

B is incorrect. The test is whether the regulation directly advances a substantial governmental interest in a way that is reasonably tailored to achieve that objective. This answer is therefore incorrect because it suggests a strict scrutiny standard — that there must be a compelling interest in protecting the aesthetics of its sidewalks and streets.

C is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The test applicable here is whether the regulation directly advances a substantial governmental interest in a way that is reasonably tailored to achieve that objective. This answer incorrectly suggests that the means must be the least restrictive means with which to protect the aesthetics of the city's sidewalks and streets.