Last month, a federal magistrate judge in New York recommended invalidating yet another sign code as content based in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In February 2015, a resident of the Village of Perry, New York, Carolyn Grieve, posted signs complaining about the village’s spending policies. Grieve received a notice of
Court: Utility Pole Warning Signs are Forced Speech in Violation of First Amendment
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
Ninth Circuit: Local Restrictions on “Mobile Advertising” Still Content Neutral post-Reed
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
Photography May Be Protected Speech, But Village’s Restriction on Park Photography Stands
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
California Supreme Court Rejects Cert Petition in Los Angeles Billboard Challenge
In a case that we reported on back in March, the California Supreme Court denied to review a state appellate court decision upholding Los Angeles’s ban on off-premises billboards. The billboard company that was the plaintiff in the case sought to have the California courts interpret the state’s constitution to prohibit the on-premises/off-premises distinction
Post-Reed Indianapolis Sign Code Amendments Survive Judicial Scrutiny; City Must Pay Damages for Past Errors
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
Federal Court in Michigan Upholds Township Billboard Regulations, but Variance Criteria are too Subjective
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
Commercial-Noncommercial and Onsite-Offsite Distinctions Upheld Under California Constitution
Like many cities, Los Angeles prohibits off-site commercial signs for purposes of promoting traffic safety and community aesthetic character.
Continue Reading Commercial-Noncommercial and Onsite-Offsite Distinctions Upheld Under California Constitution
Illinois Village Survives Sign Code Challenge
The Village of Downers Grove, Illinois survived federal and state law challenges to its sign code after a federal district court found the code to be content neutral under the standard articulated in the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Plaintiff Robert Peterson owns a business called Leibundguth Storage & Van Service, Inc., which painted large signs advertising its business on the walls of its brick building in Downers Grove. The village’s sign ordinance banned painted wall signs and limited the size and number of wall signs. Peterson argued that the sign code was content based because it exempted government signs, railroad signs, address signs, noncommercial flags, real estate signs, and decorations, among other sign types, from the village’s permitting requirement.
Continue Reading Illinois Village Survives Sign Code Challenge