The U.S. Supreme Court case Metromedia, Inc., et al. v. City of San Diego, et al., 1980 revolved around a dispute over the constitutionality of a city ordinance in San Diego that prohibited outdoor advertising displays (billboards). The plaintiff, Metromedia Inc., argued that this prohibition violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and expression. However, the City defended its ordinance on grounds of aesthetics and traffic safety concerns posed by billboards. In a complex ruling with no clear majority opinion, the court held that while cities have legitimate interests in controlling visual clutter and distractions for drivers from billboards - these interests do not justify an outright ban on all off-site commercial and noncommercial signs as it was too broad an infringement upon freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, Justice William H. Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's view that San Diego's ordinance banning offsite commercial billboards violated the First Amendment rights of billboard companies like Metromedia, Inc. He argued that cities should have broad authority to regulate local land use and aesthetics without judicial interference unless there is clear evidence of unconstitutional action or intent. In his view, this case did not meet such a threshold as it was more about urban planning than free speech issues - he saw no reason why commercial speech on billboards should be given greater protection than other forms of expression subject to zoning laws (e.g., noise from loudspeakers). Furthermore, he believed that distinguishing between onsite and offsite signs was a reasonable way to balance public interests in traffic safety and visual attractiveness against business needs for advertising space.