The United States Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, decided that, no, the ordinance did not violate the business owner’s 1st Amendment right to free speech and was not a unconstitutional takings in violation of the business owner’s 14th Amendment.

The court held that, no, the regulation, Act 257, did not result in an unconstitutional regulatory taking. They held that the test present in the court’s takings jurisprudence for whether a regulation “substantially advances” the public interest had flaws and needed to be revisited in this cases decision.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellee, because the appellants claim that the Village of Flower Hill acted in an arbitrary way does not mean they were acting in bad faith. In other words, there was no specific language in the resolution that required the appellee to provide a reason why they wouldn’t allow for enlargement of the structure. They said no, because the resolution plainly said that no enlargement could be made. They held that “courts are properly hesitant, under the guise of judicial construction, to imply additional requirements to relieve a party from asserted disadvantage”.

The decision was a 5-4 decision to consent to the lower Connecticut Supreme Court decision. Primarily, the U.S. Supreme Court held their authority does not allow them to participate in the debate about whether economic development is wholly for public good. The Court held that they will not depart from takings jurisprudence, because they will always defer to the local government’s ability to assess whether a project is for the public use or not. Additionally, they hold that they cannot second guess the city’s ability to properly identify the scope of the project and why they need to acquire the land.