Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited Partnership v. Mount Pleasant, Town of
2:20-cv-03741-DCN
| D.S.C. | Jul 12, 2023Background
- Adams Outdoor Advertising submitted nine sign-permit applications in Mount Pleasant seeking new billboards and conversions to digital displays; the Town denied all applications. Denials cited §156.162(P) (ban on electronic/digital signs) and §156.159 (off-premises signs limited to L1 zoning with size/height/setback limits).
- Adams Outdoor sued under federal and South Carolina constitutions alleging content-based regulation, vagueness/overbreadth, prior restraint, equal protection/substantive due process, and an as-applied challenge; both sides moved for summary judgment.
- Defendants raised collateral estoppel and standing arguments; the court considered prior decisions involving Adams Outdoor but declined to apply issue preclusion because the standing issues were not identical.
- The court found Adams Outdoor lacked Article III standing for many facial claims attacking provisions that were not applied to its permit denials, but allowed challenges to the off‑premises restriction and the digital‑sign ban (the provisions actually relied on).
- Applying City of Austin and related precedent, the court held the on-/off‑premises distinction and the digital‑sign ban are content‑neutral; intermediate scrutiny applied and the Town’s traffic‑safety and aesthetics justifications were adequate and narrowly tailored.
- Result: the court granted defendants’ summary judgment, denied Adams Outdoor’s motion, and dismissed the remaining parallel claims under the South Carolina Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge multiple ordinance provisions | Adams Outdoor may facially attack the entire Sign Ordinance (content‑based distinctions, vagueness, overbreadth, prior restraint) | Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to challenge provisions not applied to its permit denials; severability and redressability defeat many claims | Plaintiff lacks standing for most Count 2–4 claims; only challenges to §156.159 (off‑premises) and §156.162(P) (digital ban) proceed |
| Whether the ordinance is content‑based (facial) | Ordinance treats sign types differently and thus is content‑based; strict scrutiny required | City of Austin and Reed show on/off distinction and digital‑form bans regulate form, not subject matter; content‑neutral → intermediate scrutiny | Ordinance is content‑neutral on its face; intermediate scrutiny applies |
| Overbreadth / prior restraint / vagueness claims | §156.162(P) is overbroad (total ban on electronic/digital signs); §156.153 and definitions are vague and enable unbridled discretion/prior restraint | Plaintiff cannot show realistic, widespread unconstitutional applications; denials were based on specific, content‑neutral provisions so procedural‑safeguards claims are not redressable | Digital‑sign ban not substantially overbroad; procedural/prior‑restraint and many vagueness claims dismissed for lack of standing or on the merits |
| As‑applied First Amendment challenge | Town applied ordinance to target Adams Outdoor (selective enforcement, legislative history, meeting minutes, and examples of other signs) | Denials were based on objective size/location/digital prohibitions; alleged comparators were not permitted or were removed; no evidence of discriminatory intent | As‑applied challenge fails; denials were content‑neutral and applied consistently; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Austin v. Reagan Nat’l Advertising of Austin, LLC, 142 S. Ct. 1464 (2022) (on/off‑premises distinction is facially content‑neutral; intermediate scrutiny governs)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (content‑based regulations trigger strict scrutiny when they target subject matter or viewpoint)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (intermediate scrutiny for time, place, manner restrictions; narrow tailoring test)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981) (recognizing traffic safety and aesthetics as substantial government interests in sign regulation)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019) (definition of facial challenge principles)
- City of Madison v. Adams Outdoor Advertising Ltd. P’ship, 56 F.4th 1111 (7th Cir. 2023) (affirming content‑neutrality of digital‑sign ban and limits on plaintiff’s standing)
- Covenant Media of S.C., LLC v. City of N. Charleston, 493 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff must show injury from each challenged provision of sign code)
- Get Outdoors II, LLC v. City of San Diego, 506 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2007) (standing cannot be used to attack unrelated provisions of a sign ordinance)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (overbreadth doctrine is disfavored and requires substantial unconstitutional applications)