Clyde Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, 707 F.3d 1057

Good News Community Church (25–30 adults, 4–10 children) seeks to display temporary directional signs for church services in Gilbert, Arizona.
Gilbert’s Sign Code regulates outdoor signs by time, place, and manner; §4.402(P) governs Temporary Directional Signs Related to a Qualifying Event.
The district court upheld §4.402(P) as content-neutral and narrowly tailored, and found no equal-protection violation; it also found noncommercial speech favored over commercial speech.
On appeal, this court held Reed v. Town of Gilbert governs the case as law of the case and remanded to address First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges about unequal treatment of noncommercial speech.
During the remand, Gilbert amended the Sign Code to allow some directional signs in the public right-of-way and to limit the exemption to events within Gilbert; Good News sought to challenge the amendments as moot or ongoingly unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed summary judgment for Gilbert, concluding the differentiated treatment of noncommercial speech is content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and not a First Amendment or Equal Protection violation, while leaving open potential challenges to amended provisions in district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gilbert’s differential treatment of noncommercial speech is content-based	Good News argues distinctions favor political/ideological speech over event signs.	Gilbert argues distinctions are speaker/event-based, not content-based.	Content-neutral distinctions; not content-based.
Whether Temporary Directional Signs exemption is narrowly tailored	Good News contends exemptions are overbroad and favor non-event speech.	Gilbert asserts exemptions serve aesthetics and safety with ample alternatives.	Narrowly tailored; serves significant interests.
Whether amendments to the Sign Code moot this appeal	Amendments could affect Good News’ standing and speech restrictions.	Amendments do not moot the appeal; issues may proceed.	Amendments not moot; case can proceed; dissents reserved rights to challenge amendments in district court.
Whether Good News’ free exercise and equal protection claims survive	Sign Code burdens religion; unequal treatment violates equal protection.	Content-neutral, non-discriminatory; exemptions are not tied to religious tenets.	Claims fail; code is content-neutral, not overly broad, and does not substantially burden religion or violate equal protection.

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 F.3d 490 (U.S. 1981) (content-based billboard regulation invalid unless non-communicative justification)
National Advertising Co. v. City of Orange, 861 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1988) (noncommercial vs. commercial billboard regulation; content distinctions scrutinized)
Desert Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Moreno Valley, 103 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 1996) (noncommercial speech regulation must not be content-based)
G.K. Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego, 436 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006) (content-neutral, speaker/event-based exemptions do not violate Foti framework)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 587 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2009) (law of the case; §4.402(P) not content-based when viewed as to who speaks and what event)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (content neutrality can be found in regulation of speech-related conduct not content)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (time/place/manner restrictions must leave open alternative channels)
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (1980) (limits on content-based distinctions in noncommercial speech)
Mosley v. City of Chicago, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) (cannot distinguish among categories of non-commercial speech without non-communicative justification)
National Advertising Co. v. City of Orange, 861 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1988) (content-based distinctions among noncommercial speech examined)