Earlier this month, a federal district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of the Southwest Airlines’ Pilots Association (SWAPA), directing the City of Chicago to allow an ad proposed by SWAPA to be displayed in the Chicago Midway Airport.  The ad (see here) depicts a Southwest pilot holding a sign that reads “Shareholder Returns: $3.1 Billion.  Pilot Raises: $0.”  Acknowledging that a TRO is an “extraordinary” remedy, the court nonetheless granted it in light of an upcoming Southwest Airlines shareholders’ meeting where pilot compensation would be discussed. Continue Reading Chicago Fails to Transform Airport Advertising Space to a Non-Public Forum; Disgruntled Pilots’ Ad is Permitted

Matt Smerge of Left Field Media hawking newspapers at a Cubs game. Source: Chicago Reader.

On Monday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Chicago’s ban on the peddling of merchandise on sidewalks adjacent to Wrigley Field was a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation that survived intermediate scrutiny.  The ordinance was challenged by Left Field Media, which publishes a magazine called Chicago Baseball and sells copies outside of Wrigley Field before Chicago Cubs home games.  Chicago’s “Adjacent Sidewalks Ordinance” prohibits peddling merchandise on any sidewalk adjacent to Wrigley Field, for the purpose of allowing safe pedestrian passage.  Because the Adjacent Sidewalks Ordinance prohibited the sale of all merchandise—“[t]he ordinance applies as much to sales of bobblehead dolls and baseball jerseys as it does to the sale of printed matter”—the appeals court found that the ordinance was content neutral in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert.  The appeals court’s decision upholds the prior denial by a federal district judge of the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Continue Reading Appeals Court: Wrigley Field Peddling Ordinance Not a First Amendment Violation

Last week, a federal district court in Indiana rejected a billboard company’s claim that sign code amendments passed by Indianapolis following the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert violated the company’s First Amendment rights.  Although the decision was a win for the city’s current code, the city is being forced to pay damages to the billboard company for the monetary losses faced by the company prior to the city’s passage of the sign code amendments. Continue Reading Post-Reed Indianapolis Sign Code Amendments Survive Judicial Scrutiny; City Must Pay Damages for Past Errors

We haven’t done a news update in a few weeks, so here are some stories our readers might enjoy:

Following cross-motions for summary judgment, last week, a federal court determined that a Michigan township’s billboard restrictions were constitutional, but found that the variance provisions contained in the township’s zoning ordinance were an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.  In the same order, the court rejected a billboard owner’s regulatory taking, equal protection and unconstitutional tax claims. Continue Reading Federal Court in Michigan Upholds Township Billboard Regulations, but Variance Criteria are too Subjective

The American Bar Association Sections of State and Local Government and Civil Rights and Social Justice are teaming up for a webinar on June 14, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. ET to discuss recent court decisions on the sticky issue of panhandling and solicitation.  Since the Supreme Court decided Reed v. Town of Gilbert, many local regulations relating to panhandling and solicitation have been invalidated by the lower courts.  Rocky Mountain Sign Law has covered several of these cases.  This webinar will discuss the ins and outs of some of these cases, and provide some practical advice for government officials, planners, and lawyers on how to address issues of panhandling and solicitation.

Otten Johnson lawyer Brian Connolly will serve as one of the panelists, along with Joe Mead of Cleveland State University and Kirsten Clanton of Southern Legal Counsel.  Sorell Negro of Robinson & Cole will moderate.

Check the ABA’s website for more details on registration here.  Those interested should plan on tuning in.

Late last month, a federal court found that a group of animal rights activists was entitled to a preliminary injunction relating to the group’s protest activities outside of Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

Protesters outside of the Barnum and Bailey Circus in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Source: ACLU of Pennsylvania.

The arena in question is owned by a public convention center authority but is operated by a private management company, SMG.  In 2008, SMG promulgated a protest policy that required protestors to remain located in a parking area outside of the arena.  The protest policy limited protestors’ ability to approach attendees at public events and to distribute literature.  In March 2016, SMG revised the protest policy to allow two designated protest areas of approximately 500 to 700 square feet, and located closer to the entrance gates of the arena.  The plaintiffs, including Silvie Pomicter and Last Chance for Animals sought to protest outside of the arena during the Barnum and Bailey Circus, which took place at the arena between April 28 and May 1. Continue Reading Preliminary Injunction Granted to Animal Rights Activists in Pennsylvania Convention Center Case

The proposed billboard in this case was over three times the maximum sign area permitted by the City's sign code.
The proposed billboard in this case was over three times the maximum sign area permitted by the City’s sign code.

In a recent decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals, an applicant challenged a provision that gave the board of zoning appeals (BZA) discretion to approve signs that do not comply with the sign ordinance. The applicant, who had submitted an application for a sign that did not comply with the sign ordinance, brought an appeal to the BZA in accordance with a provision that said the BZA may grant a special permit for signs that do not otherwise comply only if the proposed sign meets certain specific standards. Those standards generally required that the sign be consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign code, be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and not be detrimental to the public safety or welfare or any adjacent land use, but reserved the discretion to grant the special permit to the BZA. The applicant’s facial challenge alleged that the discretion to grant the special permit constituted a prior restraint that “has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view.” The court disagreed, noting that the applicant could have received a permit for a billboard that met the sign code without applying for a special permit (and thus being subject to the BZA’s discretion), and moreover that the discretion, absent any evidence of an unconstitutional application, was sufficiently limited by the requirement that a proposed sign meet the specifically enumerated standards for approval. Continue Reading Optional “Special Permit” Process Does Not Place Unbridled Discretion in Government

Last month, a federal court held that a billboard company’s motion to revise the court’s earlier denial of summary judgment to a Pennsylvania township’s sign regulations was not ripe.

The billboard company, Nittany Outdoor Advertising, LLC, desired to post messages written by a non-profit organization, Stephanas Ministries, on billboards in College Township, Pennsylvania.  The township denied the request.  The billboard company filed suit in federal district court, challenging the township’s sign ordinance on First Amendment grounds, namely that the restrictions on sign area, height, and setback disfavored billboards and certain noncommercial messages.  During the pendency of the lawsuit, the township amended its sign regulations.  In 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part motions by the plaintiff for summary judgment and permanent injuctive relief.  The court specifically found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims against the pre-amendment sign ordinance and denied summary judgment with respect to the substantive challenge to the post-amendment ordinance.  The court did find, however, that the township’s permit requirement and variance procedures were unconstitutional prior restraints on speech.

The plaintiffs contended that the court’s 2014 decision was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert and filed a Motion to Revise the court’s earlier decision.  Since the local court rules required filing of a motion for reconsideration within 14 days after the order concerned, the court denied the Motion to Revise.  It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will file a new action challenging the township’s sign code.

Nittany Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. College Township, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2016 WL 1393400 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2016).

In an opinion issued last month, a federal district court in Texas denied an event promoter’s request for a preliminary injunction to compel the City of Dallas to contract with the promoter for use of the Dallas Convention Center in connection with a three-day adult entertainment expo called “Exxxotica.”

The promoter contracted with the City to hold Exxxotica at the Convention Center in 2015.  Prior to that event, the promoter had promised the City that no one under eighteen would be admitted to the event, sexual activities would be prohibited and no obscenity or public lewdness would be permitted.  However, despite the promoter’s promises, the City had evidence, including video footage, of likely underage attendees and lewd conduct at the event. Continue Reading Court Denies Adult Expo’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; City’s Convention Center is a Limited Public Forum