April 13, 2022

Oregon Ban on Home Buyers' 'Love Letters' to Sellers Violates First Amendment, Federal Court Rules

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

The law (HB 2550), which took effect at the start of 2022, required sellers' agents to "reject any communication other than customary documents in a real estate transaction, including photographs, provided by a buyer." The prohibition against transmitting non-customary documents, according to the court, includes banning "love letters and any other speech beyond disclosure forms, sales agreements, counteroffers, addenda, and reports." In the court's view, a restriction on commercial speech of this scope is unenforceable under the First Amendment.


The Oregon law prohibited buyer's agents from providing seller's agents with letters written by buyers hoping to persuade sellers to accept their offers. The use of such love letters has become a common tactic to pull at sellers' heartstrings, especially in a sellers' market, where many buyers are bidding for a property (often significantly over the asking price).

The practice usually involves buyers writing about how much they love the home and how they imagine their family living there. However, these letters may include descriptive details and family photos, which could reveal protected characteristics, such as a person's race, national origin, skin color, sex, religion, sexual orientation, familial status, or marital status. The rationale for the ban was that information in these letters could be used by the seller, whether consciously or not, and create potential unlawful biases in the seller's decision-making process on whose offer to accept.

Constitutional Challenge

The real estate firm sought to have the law declared unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In moving for a preliminary injunction, it asserted that the law was an impermissible regulation of and interference with commercial speech. The firm argued the law's restriction of speech would lead to dissatisfied clients, unfulfilled duties to disclose known material facts, and limited abilities for buyers to compete with higher offers. While the firm agreed Oregon had a substantial government interest in preventing housing discrimination, it asserted the state's ban on "love letters" was more restrictive than necessary to achieve that goal.

Oregon asserted that the real estate firm lacked standing to challenge the law, and, even if there were standing, the law did not violate the First Amendment. Oregon argued in part that its law restricted conduct, not speech, and, thus, it did not unconstitutionally regulate speech.

However, the court disagreed with Oregon and concluded the law was an overbroad regulation of protected commercial speech.

The court first determined the real estate firm had both direct and third-party standing to challenge Oregon's law. Direct standing existed because real estate agents of the firm often drafted or edited client "love letters." Third-party standing existed because the plaintiff-real estate firm had a sufficiently close relationship with its clients whose "love letter" speech was prohibited by the law.

On the merits, the court agreed that Oregon had a substantial interest in addressing a history of housing discrimination in the state, but it found the ban went too far. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held the ban violated the First Amendment because it was overinclusive, not adequately tailored, and significantly limited truthful, non-misleading speech. Not only did the ban prohibit transmitting all non-customary documents, the court noted, but it also prohibited speech in "love letters" unconnected to protected characteristics, such as a prospective buyer's affinity for the neighborhood. Moreover, the court identified four reasonable alternatives less restrictive of speech: (1) requiring agents to redact protected characteristics from client "love letters"; (2) prohibiting inclusion of photos; (3) requiring a fair housing disclosure in real estate transactions; and (4) increasing fair housing training for real estate agents.

Accordingly, the court held Oregon's "love letter" law violated the First Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The preliminary injunction will remain in place until the case is fully resolved following discovery.

While the court's injunction suggests complete bans on "love letters" do not pass muster under the First Amendment, the door remains open for some regulation. For instance, each of four reasonable alternatives identified by the court would be more likely to survive a constitutional challenge.

Finally, as suggested by the ruling, real estate brokers should provide regular training to their agents and employees on housing discrimination issues and the potential for materials submitted in support of a home purchase to open the door to claims of housing discrimination.

©2022 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit


ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Jackson Lewis P.C.

Massachusetts Enacts CROWN Act, Prohibiting Discrimination Against Protective Hairstyles

By Samia M. Kirmani Jackson Lewis P.C. August 04 , 2022

Employers should review their policies, handbooks, and training materials to ensure compliance with the new law.

Bristol-Myers Decision Applies to Plaintiffs in FLSA Collective Actions, Third Circuit Holds

By David R. Golder Jackson Lewis P.C. August 02 , 2022

Joining two other circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that Bristol-Myers does apply to FLSA collective actions, and therefore, federal courts may not exercise jurisdiction over claims of out-of-state opt-in plaintiffs in putative collective actions, other than in the states in which the employer has its principal place of business or is incorporated.

Order Issuing Changes to Michigan Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Law Stayed Until February 2023

By Emily M. Petroski Jackson Lewis P.C. August 02 , 2022

Absent a further stay by the Michigan Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court, or absent further – albeit unlikely – action by the legislature, the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (IWOWA) (the minimum wage law) and the Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA) will remain in effect until February 20, 2023.

More From Real Estate

Miami's NFT Mansion

By Michael A. Mulia Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti June 27 , 2022

A new idea for an 11,000 square foot mansion in Miami, FL known as the “Meta Residence” has raised quite a few eyebrows in the world of real estate and NFTs.

Navigating the Elevation Process—Through Associate Ranks and Beyond

By Laura Bottaro Galier Greenberg Traurig June 08 , 2022

Less discussed are the progressive steps made through the associate ranks prior to shareholder elevation: junior, mid-level and senior associate. Each internal progression provides its own challenges, but also opportunities.

Real Estate Transactions: Physical vs. Virtual

By Michael A. Mulia Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti May 24 , 2022

Today, we are focused on the comparison between the purchase transaction of virtual real estate in the metaverse and the purchase of real estate in the physical world.

Featured Stories