9th Circuit upholds ordinance regulating church signs, but discrimination issue remains
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, No. (9th Cir. Nov. 20, 2009).
Excerpts from the ruling:
COUNSEL
Benjamin W. Bull, Jeremy D. Tedesco, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, Arizona; David A. Cortman (argued), Alliance Defense Fund, Lawrenceville, Georgia; Deborah M. Sheasby, Peter A. Gentala, Center for Arizona Policy, Phoenix, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert Grasso, Jr., Kim S. Alvarado (argued), Grasso Law Firm, P.C., Chandler, Arizona, for the defendants-appellees.
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
Although “[i]t is common ground that governments may regulate the physical characteristics of signs,” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 48 (1994), sign regulations have spawned legions of First Amendment challenges. Those challenges arise because signs “pose distinctive problems that are subject to municipalities’ police powers,” and yet they are also “a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause.” Id. This case presents yet another variation on a sign ordinance—one that prohibits all signs without a permit, subject to nineteen enumerated exemptions ranging from directional signs to ideological and political signs. Good News Community Church wishes to spread the word about its Sunday services by placing temporary directional signs around the Town of Gilbert, Arizona. Gilbert, however, limits Good News’ deployment of temporary directional signs via the town’s comprehensive sign ordinance. Good News Community Church and its Pastor, Clyde Reed (collectively “Good News”), challenge the ordinance’s constitutionality under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, contending it impermissibly burdens the right to free speech and treats similar speech unequally.
Good News appeals the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance. Although we conclude the provision of the ordinance directly regulating Good News’ signs does not of itself violate the First Amendment, the district court did not address Good News’ claim that the ordinance unfairly discriminates among forms of noncommercial speech. Consequently, we remand for the district court to consider this aspect of Good News’ challenge, within the context of the preliminary injunction motion.