City has adopted an ordinance banning tobacco advertising on billboards, store windows, any site within 1,000 feet of a school, and “any other location where minors under the age of 18 years traditionally gather.

City has adopted an ordinance banning tobacco advertising on billboards, store windows, any site within 1,000 feet of a school, and “any other location where minors under the age of 18 years traditionally gather.” The purpose of the ordinance is to discourage school-age children from smoking. The likely result of the ordinance will be to cause the removal of tobacco advertising from the vicinity of schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and amusement arcades. The Association of Retailers (AOR) was formed to protect the economic interests of its member retailers. AOR had unsuccessfully opposed the adoption of the ordinance, arguing that it would cause hardship to store owners by depriving them of needed advertising revenue. AOR believes that the best way to discourage young people from smoking is by directly restricting access to tobacco rather than by banning all tobacco advertising. AOR is considering filing a complaint for injunctive relief against City in federal district court claiming that the ordinance deprives its members of rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Can they file in Federal Court? What arguments could AOR reasonably make to show that it has standing, and that its First Amendment free speech claim has merit, and would it be likely to succeed? What did the City do right or wrong and assuming it is an unconstitutional ordinance, what changes would you have made to the ordinance to make it constitutional. Discuss fully.