This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

An ordinance implemented by the Pittsburgh Human Relations Commission prohibits placement of help-wanted advertisements in columns geared at gender-specific audiences unless employers have been allowed by the judiciary to discriminate in recruiting for a certain position. The Respondent, the Human Relations Commission, argues that such advertisements are not within the scope of the First Amendment because it is commercial speech. However, the Petitioner asserts that the fact these advertisements may have a commercial aspect is irrelevant; the proper focus should be on the restrictions the law imposes on newspapers in making editorial decisions. The Petitioner pursued declaratory judgment to establish that the state policy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Freedom of Press guarantee as well as the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the Act. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.