Railway Express Agency v. New York

Brief Fact Summary.

A New York City ordinance prohibited the display of commercial advertising on vehicles using public streets, but made an exception for advertisements displayed on vehicles that related to the business interests of the owners. Railway Express Agency (REA) was convicted for violating the ordinance.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A traffic regulation prohibiting advertising on vehicles in city streets did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts.

A New York City ordinance prohibited the display of commercial advertising on vehicles using public streets, but made an exception for advertisements displayed on vehicles that related to the business interests of the owners. Railway Express Agency (REA) sold advertising space on the exterior of its trucks for matters unrelated to its own business interests. As a result, REA was convicted for violating the ordinance. REA argued that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause because the distinction between related and unrelated advertisements was not relevant to the purpose of the ordinance.

Issue.

Does a New York City traffic ordinance prohibiting vehicles from displaying advertisements unrelated to the owner’s business interests violate the Fourteenth Amendment‘s Equal Protection Clause?

Held.

No, a New York City traffic ordinance prohibiting vehicles from displaying advertisements unrelated to the owner’s business interests is constitutionally valid.

Concurrence.

Justice Jackson

The City of New York may assume that display of any advertising on vehicles tends and intends to distract the attention of drivers on the road and increases the dangers of its traffic. As a result, it is fully within its constitutional powers to forbid it all. Instead, however, the City merely seeks to reduce the hazard by saying that only some may exhibit such ads on vehicles.

The Equal Protection Clause is rendered ineffective if it is avoided by any conceivable difference that can be pointed out between those bound and those left free. In the instant case, there is a real difference between doing something out of self-interest versus doing it for hire. It is one thing to tolerate action from those who act out of their own self-interest; it is another to permit the same action to be promoted for a price.

Discussion.

The classification is related to the purpose for which it is made and does not contain the kind of discrimination against which the Equal Protection Clause affords protection. It is by such practical considerations based on experience rather than by theoretical inconsistencies that the question of equal protection is to be answered. There is no requirement per the Equal Protection Clause that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.