Central Radio Company Inc. v. City of Norfolk, 811 F.3d 625

City of Norfolk adopted a former sign code regulating varied signs and exempting flags, emblems, and certain works of art from regulation.
Central Radio’s banner on its building, depicting a flag, logo, and message, was cited for exceeding size limits and lacking a sign certificate.
Plaintiffs challenged the former sign code as unconstitutional content-based and as imposing a prior restraint, and alleged selective enforcement against their display.
District court granted summary judgment for the City, upholding size restrictions and exemptions as content-neutral under intermediate scrutiny.
Supreme Court’s Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) remanded for reconsideration of content-neutrality analysis and strict scrutiny.
The City amended the sign code in October 2015 to remove exemptions for flags/emblems and to add procedural time limits; issue of mootness/relief on the prior code then depends on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether former sign code was content-based under Reed.	Central Radio argued exempting certain content shows content-based bias.	City contended exemptions were content-neutral.	Content-based regulation; strict scrutiny applies.
Whether exemptions rendered the code narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny.	Exemptions were underinclusive and overbroad, failing to serve compelling interests.	Exemptions tied to aesthetics/traffic safety.	Not narrowly tailored; fails strict scrutiny.
Whether the former code’s prior restraint and selective enforcement claims succeed.	Enforcement implicated prior restraint and discriminatory application.	No improper prior restraint; no showing of discriminatory intent.	Prior restraint/intent not proven; selective enforcement claims dismissed.
Whether prospective relief remains moot after amendment of the sign code.	Nominal and prospective relief still sought for prior code.	Amended code moots prospective relief.	Prospective relief moot; nominal damages remanded for Count Two.
Whether the amended sign code raises new content-based challenges on remand.	Amended provisions might continue content-based restrictions.	Court should wait to assess new claims on remand.	Remand allowed district court to consider new claims related to amended code.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (establishes content-based language analysis for sign regulations)
Cahaly v. LaRosa, 796 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2015) (abrogates prior content-neutral approach; focuses on content distinction)
Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2005) (content-based exemptions evaluated under content-based framework)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (significant government interest and tailoring considerations)
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981) (speech regulation and aesthetic interests groundwork)
Dimmitt v. City of Clearwater, 985 F.2d 1565 (11th Cir. 1993) (underinclusiveness and tailoring of speech restrictions)
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) (balance of regulatory interests and speech restrictions)
Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) (implications for regulating speech related to political content)
United States v. Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) (less restrictive alternatives and tailoring in regulation)
Sylvia Dev. Corp. v. Calvert Cnty., 48 F.3d 810 (4th Cir. 1995) (factors for discriminatory intent in selective enforcement)
Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (considerations for proving discriminatory intent in decisions)