Brian J. Connolly

Subscribe to Brian J. Connolly's Posts
The court ruled that signs like the one shown above are forced speech in contradiction of First Amendment rights of utility companies. Source: Newsday.

In a decision that could have far-reaching consequences, earlier this year, a federal court in New York found a town law requiring the placement of warning signs on utility posts violated the First Amendment as a content based restriction on noncommercial speech.

In 2014, the Town of North Hempstead, New York adopted a local law requiring warning signs on utility posts in the town.  The law came about following local opposition to the erection of a new overheard electricity transmission line through the town.  As part of the project, the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) and PSEG Long Island LLC (PSEG) placed new utility poles
Continue Reading Court:  Utility Pole Warning Signs are Forced Speech in Violation of First Amendment

The Ron Paul sign in question in the Texas Highway Beautification Act case. Source: Austin Chronicle.

The Texas Highway Beautification Act permits “political” signs to be displayed no more than 90 days before an election and 10 days after an election.  Because this provision regulates speech based on its content, two weeks ago, the Texas Court of Appeals found the entire Highway Beautification Act violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The court’s decision in Auspro Enterprises, LP v. Texas Department of Transportation is a major blow to state and local efforts to control billboard advertising.

The case began in 2011 when a head shop owner in Bee Cave, Texas, Auspro Enterprises, displayed a sign advocating the election of Ron Paul for President outside of the time limits prescribed by the Highway Beautification Act.   The state Department of Transportation brought an enforcement action against the landowner
Continue Reading Texas Court Deals Setback to Billboard Restrictions

This post is authored as a joint post of the RLUIPA Defense (www.rluipa-defense.com) and Rocky Mountain Sign Law (www.rockymountainsignlaw.com) blogs.  Evan Seeman of Robinson & Cole and Brian Connolly of Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti contributed to this post.

Late last month, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled that…

Last Friday, a federal district court in Florida found that the City of Tampa’s restriction on requests for donation or payment—aimed at preventing panhandling and solicitation on city streets—violated the First Amendment.  The court’s decision follows on several other decisions around the country that have invalidated bans on solicitation of donations on the grounds that such bans are not content neutral.
Continue Reading Tampa Panhandling Ban Found Unconstitutional

A mobile billboard in Miami, Florida. Source: mobilebillboardmiami.com.

This post was authored by Otten Johnson summer law clerk Alex Gano.  Alex is a rising third-year law student at the University of Colorado Law School.

Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Lone Star Security v. City of Los Angeles revisited an earlier opinion regarding the content neutrality of ordinances in five Southern California cities that banned mobile billboard advertising.  In upholding the municipal bans a second time, the court held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert did not create heightened judicial scrutiny for restrictions on the “manner” of advertising.
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Local Restrictions on “Mobile Advertising” Still Content Neutral post-Reed

A gated community in Puerto Rico. Source: latinamericacurrentevents.com

This post was authored by Otten Johnson summer law clerk Matt Bender.  Matt is a rising third-year law student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, in Watchtower Bible Tract Society of New York v. Municipality of Ponce, decided that streets built and maintained by a small, gated community and never deeded to the local municipality, were a public forum.  The court prohibited the neighborhood and its guards from excluding the plaintiffs, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and ordered the municipality to affirmatively ensure that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights would be protected.
Continue Reading In Puerto Rico, Private Roads are a Public Forum

Last week, a court in Missouri ruled that a village’s ordinance prohibiting commercial activity—including commercial photography—in a park was a constitutional restriction on speech.

The Village of Twin Oaks, Missouri had an ordinance that prohibited the use of a village park for commercial purposes.  The park was posted with signage that read:  “No commercial activity, including commercial photographers.”  The stated purpose for the village’s regulation was to ensure public safety and fair use of the park.  Josephine Havlak was a professional photographer who takes pictures for wedding and portrait purposes.  After Havlak filed suit claiming that the ordinance was a content based and unconstitutional restriction on speech, the village modified the ordinance to allow commercial photographers to use the park in exchange for a $100 permit fee.
Continue Reading Photography May Be Protected Speech, But Village’s Restriction on Park Photography Stands

Above, an advertisement that Women’s Health Link wished to place on the side of Citilink buses in Fort Wayne. Source: Alliance Defending Freedom.

In a case that we reported on earlier this year, last month, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an Indiana district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Fort Wayne public transit system, Citilink, holding that the transit company’s rejection of an advertisement for a healthcare organization was unreasonable in light of Citilink’s advertising policy.
Continue Reading Seventh Circuit Finds Fort Wayne Bus Advertising Policy Unreasonable

Paula Soto speaking before the Cambridge City Council. Source: Cambridge Day.

This post was authored by Otten Johnson summer law clerk Alex Gano.  Alex is a rising third-year law student at the University of Colorado Law School.

Last week, a federal magistrate judge in Boston denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in a case involving a municipal ordinance and state law that (might) prohibit non-commercial leafletting of parked cars. The court held that the plaintiff’s case against the City was moot because the City had recently amended its ordinance to allow non-commercial leafletting on private property.  The court also considered and rejected the City’s motion to join the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the case citing the Eleventh Amendment.  The order in Soto v. City of Cambridge acknowledges a circuit split over the constitutionality of laws banning non-commercial leafletting, but the court ultimately declined to weigh in on the controversy.
Continue Reading Federal Court in Massachusetts Rejects First Amendment Leafletting Challenge