In the case of City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Preferred Communications, a cable television company that had been denied access to public utility poles and conduits by the city. The court held that this denial violated the First Amendment rights of Preferred Communications. The city had argued that it was justified in limiting access due to physical constraints on available space for cables and concerns about safety and aesthetics. However, the court found these reasons insufficient to override constitutional protections for free speech and press freedom. This decision affirmed that government entities cannot arbitrarily restrict access to public resources used for communication without demonstrating compelling reasons related to public interest or welfare.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., Justice White argued that the case should have been dismissed due to lack of ripeness. He contended that since Preferred Communications had not yet submitted a formal application for a cable franchise, it was premature to consider whether their First Amendment rights were violated by the city's franchising process and regulations. Furthermore, he noted that there was no evidence showing an imminent threat of harm or immediate danger posed by these regulations on Preferred Communication's constitutional rights. Therefore, in his view, this dispute did not present a justiciable controversy suitable for judicial resolution at this stage.