Linmark Assocs., Inc.v.Township of Willingboro

In March 1974, petitioner Linmark Associates, a New Jersey corporation, owned real property in the Township of Willingboro, New Jersey, and listed it for sale with petitioner Mellman, a real estate agent.¹ To market the property, the petitioners sought to post a “For Sale” sign on the lawn.² On March 18, 1974, the Township Council enacted Ordinance 5-1974, which repealed prior authorization for “For Sale” and “Sold” signs on all but model homes.³ Petitioners then brought suit against the township and the building inspector responsible for enforcing the sign ban, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.⁴

The township of Willingboro is a residential community in southern New Jersey developed in the late 1950s by Levitt & Sons as a middle-income area.⁵ During the 1960s, its white population grew by nearly 350 percent while the nonwhite population increased from 60 to over 5,000, reaching 11.7 percent of the total.⁶ By 1970, the population stood at almost 44,000.⁷ From 1970 to 1973, the white population declined by nearly 2,000, or over 5 percent, while the nonwhite population grew by more than 3,000, or about 60 percent, making nonwhites 18.2 percent of residents by 1973.⁸

Respondents presented testimony at trial from real estate agents, council members, and Human Relations Commission members attributing the white population decline to “panic selling” driven by fears that the township would become all black and property values would fall.⁹ One agent estimated that 80 percent of sellers cited concerns that “the whole town was for sale.”¹⁰ Mayor William Kearns testified that community meetings in 1973 led to proposals to ban signs, prompting the council to study ordinances from other communities like Shaker Heights, Ohio, and to hold public hearings in February and March 1974 before unanimously approving the measure.¹¹

At the hearings, the council learned that the 1973 home sales turnover rate was roughly 11 percent, that 230 “For Sale” signs stood among 11,000 houses in February 1974, and that property values had risen faster than in comparable communities.¹² Real estate agents reported that 30 to 35 percent of their clients came from seeing signs, and one estimated that sales without signs would take twice as long.¹³ Surveys showed strong public support for the ban, though speakers emphasized aesthetics and property values more than racial changes.¹⁴ After nine months under the ordinance, witnesses noted fewer panic sales but no drop in overall sales volume, with agents reporting 25 percent business growth.¹⁵

The District Court declared the ordinance unconstitutional. A divided Court of Appeals reversed that judgment in 1976.¹⁶ The Supreme Court granted certiorari later that year.¹⁷