Before Halloween in 2018, the Butts County Sheriff’s Office placed signs in the front yards of registered sex offenders in the County, warning against trick-or-treating there. The next year, three registered sex offenders sued to enjoin County Sheriff Gary Long from placing the signs again, claiming that they constituted compelled speech in violation of the
Since the rest of the world seems to be taking a break from regular activities amid the COVID-19 outbreak, we’ll take a break from our regularly-scheduled programming to offer our view of the pandemic through the lens of our favorite topic: First Amendment rights.
China’s response to the outbreak in Wuhan is well-documented. Mandatory quarantines, citywide shutdowns, prohibitions on gatherings, and other such actions were implemented swiftly. We in the United States have not yet seen such a response, and there’s no telling whether such a response will be needed. But because we enjoy more individual liberties than do Chinese citizens, what might be the legal consequences of some of these actions? We offer some thoughts below for state and local regulators:…
Continue Reading COVID-19 and the First Amendment: Thoughts for State and Local Regulators
In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s rejection of claims by the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area that the City of Oakland’s program requiring developers to contribute 1% of the cost of a development project to public art violated the First Amendment. In an unpublished opinion, the circuit court concluded that, although such a program implicated free speech concerns, it did not compel any particular speech. The court noted that the program offered developers wide latitude to determine how they might incorporate artwork into their projects. The court agreed that the program was related to the city’s interests in encouraging aesthetic interest in the community.…
Continue Reading Federal Court Denies Challenge to Oakland, California’s “1% for Art” Program
A San Francisco ordinance requiring health warnings on advertisements for some sugar-sweetened beverages has suffered an early defeat. On January 31, the Ninth Circuit ruled, en banc, that the district court should have granted…
Early this month, the federal district court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a New York City law requiring food service industry employers to provide a payroll deduction system for their employees to make donations to non-profit organizations did not violate the First Amendment rights of such employers.
New York City’s law became effective in late 2017. Fast food establishments are required to create and maintain deduction systems. Upon request from an employee, the establishment must deduct a donation to a non-profit organization from the employee’s pay check and remit it to the designated organization. Non-profit organizations that receive funds through the system are required to reimburse employers for the cost of maintaining the deduction system, if requested by the employers.
Continue Reading Court Upholds New York City’s Fast-Food Payroll Deduction System For Donations
While the Rocky Mountain Sign Blog is geared toward issues that involve free speech and land use law, we geek out about any Supreme Court case that addresses First Amendment issues, even those outside of our weird little land use world. Yesterday, our appetite…
The City of Oakland, California, evidently hoping that new multifamily residential and commercial developments will contribute to public art displayed around the city, last year enacted an ordinance requiring art purchases as a condition of development approval. For new multifamily developments, the city requires art purchases (or an in lieu payment to the city’s public art fund) equivalent to .5 percent of a proposed building’s development costs. New commercial developments incur purchase requirements or fee payments equal to 1 percent of those costs. And for developers choosing to purchase art, the city requires that they display it on the property where the development will occur.
The Building Industry Association-Bay Area (“BIA”) challenged the ordinance’s validity, arguing …
Continue Reading U.S. District Court Dismisses Claims that Oakland Art-Purchase Development Condition Violates Constitution
Two weeks ago, a federal court in Illinois denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the City of Chicago’s recently-enacted short-term rental ordinance. In its order, the court determined that the ordinance, which seeks to regulate individuals’ rental of units on Internet-based services such as Airbnb, VRBO, or HomeAway, did not affect the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free speech. The decision marks an interesting constitutional development in continued efforts by local governments to regulate short-term rentals.
In summer 2016, Chicago enacted what it calls the “shared housing ordinance,” or SHO. The SHO requires hosts of units available for short-term rent to register their housing units with the city prior to listing their units on any Internet-based services. Airbnb, VRBO, HomeAway and other services are also required to register with the city. As applied to individuals, the SHO imposes requirements on the services provided by the short-term rental, and also requires individuals to maintain guest registries, and post their licensing information at the unit.
Continue Reading Chicago Short-Term Rental Ordinance Does Not Implicate First Amendment: Federal District Court
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