Frank Wagner v. City of Garfield Heights
675 F. App'x 599
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Garfield Heights ordinance Chapter 1140 generally restricts residential signs but allows temporary signs up to 12 sq ft; Section 1140.362 separately limits political signs to 6 sq ft (and applies citywide).
- Frank Wagner placed a 16-sq-ft political sign on his lawn opposing a local official; city officials threatened enforcement under Section 1140.362 and warned of fines.
- Wagner sued, seeking declaratory relief and an injunction against enforcement of Section 1140.362 as facially and as-applied violating the First Amendment.
- The district court held Section 1140.362 content-based, applied strict scrutiny, and enjoined enforcement; the Sixth Circuit reversed under intermediate scrutiny in a prior opinion.
- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert (holding facially content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny), prompting reconsideration of standing and the merits.
- On remand the Sixth Circuit (per curiam) held Wagner has Article III standing to challenge the threatened enforcement of Section 1140.362 and that the provision is subject to strict scrutiny and fails it because it is underinclusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Redressability | Wagner: threatened enforcement of §1140.362 injures him; injunction against that provision would redress injury | City: even if §1140.362 invalidated, other ordinances (12-sq-ft limit) could still prohibit his sign, so injury not redressable | Wagner has standing—City chose §1140.362 as the basis for enforcement; invalidating it would redress the complained-of threatened enforcement |
| Content-based classification | Wagner: §1140.362 singles out political signs for different treatment -> content-based -> strict scrutiny | City: regulatory context shows political signs face no greater restrictions in residential areas (or are treated similarly) -> content-neutral -> intermediate scrutiny | Reed controls: §1140.362 is facially content-based and thus subject to strict scrutiny; defendants did not dispute this on remand |
| Level of scrutiny to apply | Wagner: strict scrutiny required because law targets topic/message | City: prior panel applied intermediate scrutiny; urges survival under strict scrutiny | Court applies strict scrutiny pursuant to Reed and the statute is subject to that heightened review |
| Narrow tailoring / underinclusiveness | Wagner: city allows larger non-political temporary signs, so limiting only political signs is underinclusive | City: asserts compelling interests (aesthetics, traffic safety) and argues tailoring satisfied or interests legitimate | The ordinance is hopelessly underinclusive (permits larger other temporary signs) and thus fails narrow tailoring under strict scrutiny; §1140.362 unconstitutional as to political residential signs |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (facially content-based sign regulations trigger strict scrutiny regardless of benign motive)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982) (government’s use of a specific statutory provision to compel action gives standing to challenge that provision)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing elements: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Discovery Network, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 507 U.S. 410 (1993) (content-based restrictions on distribution of materials subject to heightened scrutiny)
- Wagner v. City of Garfield Heights, [citation="577 F. App'x 488"] (6th Cir. 2014) (earlier Sixth Circuit panel opinion applying context-based intermediate scrutiny)
- Midwest Media Prop., L.L.C. v. Symmes Twp., 503 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2007) (distinguishable: permit-denial case addressing redressability/standing in a different posture)