Lexington H-L Services, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 879 F.3d 224

Lexington adopted Ordinance 25-2017 regulating delivery of unsolicited written materials, limiting delivery to six specific locations (e.g., front porch, attached to front door, mail slot, distribution box, or personal delivery).
Lexington H-L Services (the Herald‑Leader) distributes a free weekly, The Community News, by driveway/yard delivery to ~135,000 packets weekly and challenged the ordinance as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments via § 1983.
The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement, finding likelihood of success; Lexington appealed the injunction to the Sixth Circuit.
On appeal, the parties agreed the ordinance is content‑neutral and that the City asserted substantial interests: reducing visual blight, reducing litter, and protecting private property.
The Sixth Circuit applied intermediate scrutiny (time, place, manner) and evaluated whether the ordinance was narrowly tailored and left open ample alternative channels.
The Sixth Circuit concluded the ordinance is narrowly tailored to reduce visual blight and litter, but not narrowly tailored to advance a private‑property protection interest; it also found ample alternative channels and reversed the preliminary injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper level of scrutiny	Ordinance burdens core circulation rights and district court erred applying intermediate scrutiny	Ordinance is content‑neutral; intermediate scrutiny applies	Parties conceded content neutrality; intermediate scrutiny governs (court reviewed narrow tailoring and alternatives)
Narrow tailoring to city interests	Ordinance burdens substantially more speech; opt‑out lists are less restrictive alternative	Ordinance reasonably furthers esthetic and anti‑litter interests given millions of packets delivered annually	Ordinance is narrowly tailored to further reducing visual blight and litter, but not narrowly tailored to protect private property
Ample alternative channels	Driveway delivery is uniquely efficient and inexpensive; ordinance will destroy The Community News	Ordinance preserves many delivery methods (porch, door, mail slot, distribution boxes, personal delivery) and leaves other expressive means intact	Ordinance leaves open ample alternative channels; economic inefficiency alone does not render restriction invalid
Preliminary injunction standard	Immediate irreparable harm and likely success on merits justify injunction	Plaintiff unlikely to succeed on the merits under correct legal test; district court abused discretion	Because Plaintiff failed to show likelihood of success on merits, granting the preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion; injunction vacated

Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (discusses circulation as essential to press freedom)
Schneider v. State of New Jersey, Town of Irvington, 308 U.S. 147 (door‑to‑door handbill distribution and First Amendment)
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (door‑to‑door solicitation and consent requirements)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (time, place, manner test: narrow tailoring and alternative channels)
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (overbreadth in time/place restriction that cuts off face‑to‑face communication)
Taxpayers for Vincent v. City of Los Angeles, 466 U.S. 789 (esthetic interests and restrictions on posting signs)
Jobe v. City of Catlettsburg, 409 F.3d 261 (6th Cir.) (application of time/place/manner to handbill/windshield restrictions)
Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 398 F.3d 814 (6th Cir.) (narrow tailoring reasonableness under intermediate scrutiny)
Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (upholding residential picketing restriction where alternatives remained)
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41 (cities may rely on comparable evidence to justify regulations)