Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2013 I Volume 7 ( Issue 6 The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. NINTH CIRCUIT (ARIZONA) (02/08/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether a town's sign code improperly discriminated between different forms of noncommercial speech and was thus in violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. More specifi- cally, the case addressed whether the differing restrictions between types of noncommercial speech were: (1) "adequately justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech"; and (2) "narrowly tailored." The Background/Facts: Good News Community Church and its pastor, Clyde Reed (collectively, "Good News"), rented space at an elementary school in Chandler, Arizona, which borders Gilbert, Arizona (the "Town"). Good News placed about 17 signs in the area, announcing the time and location of its services. In 2005, the Town advised Good News that it was violating the Town's sign ordinance (the "Sign Code") because "the signs were displayed outside the statutorily -limited time period." The Sign Code required a sign permit for the erection of signs in Town, with exceptions. Three of the types of those exceptions were: "Temporary Directional Signs Relating to Qualifying Event"; "Political Signs"; and "Ideo- logical Signs." Temporary Directional Signs directed people to an event. Po- litical Signs were temporary signs that supported candidates for office or urged action on any other matter on the ballot of elections. Ideological Signs were those communicating a "message or ideas for noncommercial purposes that were not construction signs, directional signs, garage sale signs, or signs owned or required by a governmental agency." Under the Sign Code, the town's restrictions on these different types of signs varied by sign type. Good News' signs were Temporary Directional Signs. As such, they were subject to specified size restrictions and could only be displayed "up to 12 hours before, during and 1 hour after the qualifying event ends." Also, they could not be placed "in a public right-of-way." Good News brought a legal action challenging the Sign Code as unconstitu- tional in violation of its free speech rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Good News argued that the different restrictions for different types of noncommercial speech (such as different restrictions placed on Temporary Directional Signs, Political Signs, and Ideological Signs) were "inherently content -based and thus unconstitutional." In other words, Good News contended that the Sign Code improperly regulated noncom- mercial temporary signs based on their content. It sought a preliminary injunc- tion barring enforcement of the Sign Code. The district court denied Good News' motion for the preliminary injunction. The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed in part and remanded in part. On remand, the district court granted the Town summary judgment. It found that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and decided, on the law alone, that the Sign Code was constitutional. Good News appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. © 2013 Thomson Reuters 3