Cities Lose Supreme Court Case on Sign Regulation

"The Supreme Court struck down an Arizona town’s ordinance that treated signs directing people to a small church’s worship services differently than signs with other messages, such as a political candidate’s advertisement," writes Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes.

The [Good News Community Church], which has no permanent home, contended it is being treated differently than politicians, homeowner associations and builders.

The town is fast-growing Gilbert, which had a population of 6,000 in 1980 and an estimated population of 239,000 last year, according to Wikipedia.

"That decision has far-reaching implications for most cities and local governments across the nation, where similar sign regulations will come under renewed scrutiny, experts say," writes Parker Leavitt of The Arizona Republic.

"Local governments across the country view the case as 'one of the most important' to come before the court, according to William Brinton, an authority on sign regulation for local governments who filed a brief in this case on behalf of a large number of municipal government organizations," wrote Nina Totenberg of NPR on Jan. 12, when the Supreme Court heard the case. [Listen here]. 

Sign regulation is a thorn in the side of local governments. They get sued over these rules all the time, and the lower courts are divided over what constitutional standard to use in evaluating these regulations. 

While lawyers for the petitioners viewed the outcome as a victory for religious freedom, "the justices didn't treat it that way," write Richard Wolf and Brad Heath of USA TODAY. "Rather, they said local governments must be able to justify the disparate treatment accorded organizations seeking to spread their messages."

The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who "said courts must be skeptical of any law that limits speech based on its content, and that sign laws are no exception." A minority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, also ruled against Gilbert, "(b)ut she said the court had gone too far in saying such regulations should receive the court’s most exacting scrutiny," writes Parker.