Writing for the Court, Justice William Douglas began by responding to the argument that the regulation’s classification of advertisements for products sold by the truck owner and general advertisements constitutes unequal treatment with no justified purpose. Douglas stated that such a description of the regulation “superficial” because local authorities may have concluded that general advertisements create a larger impact on the traffic problem they sought to address than advertisements not regulated. He added that “[i]t would take a degree of omniscience which we lack to say that such is not the case. If that judgment is correct, the advertising displays that are exempt have less incidence on traffic than those of [Railway Express].” Further, Douglas explained that it’s immaterial that NYC “sees fit to eliminate from traffic this kind of distraction but does not touch what may be even greater ones in a different category, such as the vivid displays on Time Square” because “[i]t is no requirement of equal protection that all evils of the same genus be eradicated or none at all.”