City of Scottsdale v. State
352 P.3d 936
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Arizona enacted A.R.S. § 9-499.13 (2014) forbidding municipal bans on "sign walkers" and requiring municipalities to allow sign walkers on public sidewalks while permitting reasonable time, place, and manner regulations.
- Scottsdale had an existing ordinance (S.R.C. § 16-353(c)) that broadly prohibited carrying or wearing advertising signs on public streets, and defined "street" to include sidewalks.
- The City filed a declaratory judgment action to validate its ordinance, asserting charter-city authority to regulate local matters (sidewalk safety, aesthetics, municipal control).
- Sign King intervened, arguing the Scottsdale ordinance violated free speech and A.R.S. § 9-499.13; the State joined Sign King in seeking summary judgment that the state statute preempted the city ordinance.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the State, finding the statute addressed a matter of statewide concern and preempted the City’s blanket ban on sign walkers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 9-499.13 preempts Scottsdale’s ban on sign walkers | City: ordinance regulates a local matter (sidewalks, safety, aesthetics) and is protected by charter-city authority | State/Sign King: statute addresses statewide concerns (free speech, police power, uniform sign regulation) and prohibits blanket bans | Preemption: statute preempts the local ordinance; blanket ban invalid |
| Whether sign-walker regulation is a matter of statewide concern | City: sign regulation is a local zoning/municipal aesthetics issue | State: statute and legislative history show statewide interest in protecting speech on traditional public forums | Statewide concern: court finds statewide interest and uniform application required |
| Whether charter-city status immunizes Scottsdale from the statute | City: charter authority allows local regulation inconsistent with state law on local matters | State: charter cities remain subject to state laws on matters of statewide concern | Charter sovereignty limited: cannot override state law on statewide matters |
| Whether the statute impermissibly limits reasonable municipal regulation | City: statute improperly restricts time/place/manner controls | State/Statute: allows reasonable time/place/manner rules but bars outright bans and requires uniformity on sidewalks | Court: statute permits reasonable regulation but forbids blanket prohibition and requires equal access on public thoroughfares |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coles, 234 Ariz. 573 (App. 2014) (state law preempted municipal criminalization of public intoxication)
- Levitz v. State, 126 Ariz. 203 (1980) (advertising sign regulation is not purely local; state may regulate signs)
- Scottsdale Associated Merchs., Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 120 Ariz. 4 (1978) (charter cities yield to Legislature on matters of statewide concern)
- City of Tucson v. Arizona Alpha of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 67 Ariz. 330 (1948) (sale of municipal real estate is a local matter)
- McMann v. City of Tucson, 202 Ariz. 468 (App. 2002) (leasing municipal real property is local, not statewide)