High Court to Consider Anti-Sign Measure : Law: Conservative justices may want to allow restrictions if they are applied evenly. Case involves a homeowner’s political protest.

The Supreme Court, on the opening day of its term, announced Monday that it would decide whether a city can ban most signs and billboards within its borders, including a homeowner’s political protest displayed in her front yard.

The case, which arose in an affluent suburb of St. Louis, raises a potentially broad-reaching First Amendment question that has split the court for more than a decade.

City officials have argued that they should be permitted to outlaw “neon clutter” and “visual blight” to improve the look of their communities. However, First Amendment advocates say that placards and signs, especially those with a political message, are protected as a form of free speech.

Traditionally, the court has frowned on broad bans on signs, but leading conservatives have been urging a change.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia have conceded that the government cannot selectively ban certain protests that carry a specific message, such as the burning of an American flag or the display of a Nazi swastika.

However, they also hinted that they would support a law banning an entire category of speech, as long as the measure does not give an advantage to or discriminate against a particular viewpoint or message.

In this case, city officials in Ladue, Mo., passed a law forbidding the display of all signs, except for street signs and identifications for buildings such as schools, churches and hospitals.

“Ladue’s sign ordinance does not favor the content of any particular viewpoint expressed through a sign,” its attorneys said in the city’s appeal. Critics noted, however, that the city permitted owners to display “For Rent” or “For Sale” signs on their property.

In December, 1990, homeowner Margaret Gilleo asked permission to place in her yard a 2-by-3-foot sign that read: “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf. Call Congress Now.”

Her request was denied, however, and she filed a suit in federal court. Relying on the First Amendment, a judge in St. Louis struck down the entire law as unconstitutional and the U.S. appeals court upheld that ruling earlier this year.

In a brief order Monday, the justices said they would hear the city’s appeal in the case (Ladue vs. Gilleo, 92-1856).

The case was one of nine granted a review on Monday. All the new cases will be argued before the court in January. Meanwhile, appeals in more than 1,400 cases were dismissed without comment.

Among the highlights, the court:

* Let stand a California Supreme Court ruling that forbids UC Berkeley from collecting a mandatory fee from students used to support various political and ideological groups on campus (Regents of the University of California vs. Smith, 93-82). Several conservative students said that they did not want to pay for leftist groups, and the state court agreed that the mandatory fee violates the First Amendment. The university cannot force dissenting students to pay the full fee.

* Dismissed a challenge to a high school graduation requirement that students perform 60 hours of unpaid community service (Steirer vs. Bethlehem Area School District, 92-1983). Two Pennsylvania students said that the school policy violates their rights to free speech and imposes “involuntary servitude” banned by the 13th Amendment. Two lower courts had rejected that claim earlier.

* Agreed to rule whether Congress can amend a tax law and apply its action retroactively. The issue arose during the debate on President Clinton’s deficit reduction bill. In the case before the court (United States vs. Carlton, 92-1941), the Internal Revenue Service demanded an extra $2.5 million in estate taxes from an Orange County man.

In January, 1987, Congress had hastily amended a 1986 tax law and closed a loophole for those who had losses from stock sales. But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled on a 2-1 vote that the IRS could not retroactively apply that change to taxpayers who acted on the basis of the 1986 law.

* Let stand a $5-million punitive damage verdict against an Oklahoma hospital (Hillcrest Medical Center vs. Scribner, 92-1982), which arose when an orderly mistakenly wheeled a patient to the lab for a test she did not need.

* Let stand an appeals court ruling in California that holds cruise ships fully liable for damages in any accidents or incidents which occur on board, even if the ship’s operators were not to blame (Carnival Cruise Lines vs. Morton, 92-1987). The cruise ship’s owners had argued that they should not be held liable for an alleged sexual assault by a ship employee.

* Refused to hear a woman’s challenge to a law firm’s decision denying her a partnership (Ezold vs. Wolf, Block, 92-2013). Some 55 women’s groups had supported her appeal, contending that it illustrated the “glass ceiling” that women often encounter in male-dominated professions. A federal appeals court had said that the woman apparently lacked legal ability and said that it found “no evidence of sex discrimination.”