Cerame v. Lamont

Summary

The court answered a certified statutory-interpretation question by holding that the plaintiff’s alleged personal and noncommercial speech was not speech made “by his advertisement” under § 53-37. Although the statutory text and related enactments did not unambiguously resolve the meaning of “advertisement,” the statute’s historical context showed that the legislature intended to target discriminatory commercial notices, not personal expression. The court therefore did not reach the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge or the defendants’ standing arguments.