SCOTUS strikes down sign code is a content-based regulation that doesn't survive strict scrutiny

By Dale Conder posted 06-18-2015 12:58 PM

Recommend

In January, SCOTUS heard arguments in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona. The case challenged the constitutionality of the town's sign ordinance. The ordinance put signs in various categories and then limited the sign's size and duration of display based on the category into which the sign fell. The petitioner is a cash-strapped church that meets in different locations. The church uses temporary signs to invite the public to its services. Under the town's ordinance the church couldn't put its signs up more than 12 hours before the service and had to take them down within an hour of the end of the service. The Ninth Circuit in a 2-1 opinion upheld the ordinance.
Today, SCOTUS issued its decision written by Justice Thomas. The Court held that the sign code imposes content-based restrictions and can survive only if the government proves that the restrictions further a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The government offered two reasons: (1) preserving the town's aesthetic appeal, and (2) traffic safety. The Court rejected these justifications as under inclusive, that is, the code leaves unprohibited "appreciable damage" to the government's supposed vital interest. There is no basis for concluding that temporary directional signs are more of an eyesore than permanent signs, nor is there a basis for concluding that the limiting temporary directional signs is necessary to eliminate threats to traffic safety, but limiting other signs is not.

0 comments

35 views