A city ordinance requires taxi operators to have a license and revokes licenses for good causes, including a condition that licensees not display bumper stickers or signs favoring any candidate for municipal office. A licensee who displays bumper stickers is subject to revocation. What is the strongest defense to upholding the licensing restriction?

• A. The restriction is content-based and triggers strict scrutiny, and the city cannot show a compelling interest.
• B. The government cannot require a license holder to surrender First Amendment rights as a condition of receiving a government benefit.
• C. This is a takings issue, not a First Amendment issue.
• D. The government may revoke the license as a matter of property regulation without violating liberties.

Answer: (A)

The strongest defense rests on treating the restriction as a content-based limit on political speech tied to a government license. Banning bumper stickers or signs supporting or opposing a municipal candidate targets the content of political expression by taxi operators and is not a neutral regulation of licensing alone. Under First Amendment doctrine, content-based restrictions receive strict scrutiny: the government must show a compelling interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest using no less restrictive means. Here, the city’s rule suppresses political expression of all licensees and is not shown to be essential to any compelling objective; there are far less restrictive ways to regulate the licensing regime (for example, addressing safety or nuisance concerns without suppressing political speech). Because the city cannot demonstrate a compelling interest or a narrowly tailored approach, the licensing restriction cannot be upheld.