Was the imposition of liability for the landlord's speech a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner was a small landlord in Davenport, Iowa who decided to terminate the at-will tenancy of a mother and her teenage daughter when she learned the unmarried daughter had become pregnant. The termination of the tenancy itself, allegedly on the basis of familial status, did not violate Davenport’s municipal ordinance. But the local civil rights commission concluded that the landlord had violated local law by providing the truthful reason for the termination because it was a statement reflecting discrimination on the basis of familial status. The Iowa courts upheld this decision, concluding that it did not violate the First Amendment because “prohibiting discriminatory speech,” even about the lawful termination of the tenancy, was a substantial governmental interest under the Central Hudson test. 1. Was the imposition of liability for the landlord’s speech a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? 2. Was the local law’s prohibition of statements indicating discrimination based on familial status subject to strict or heightened scrutiny because it was content and/or viewpoint discriminatory?