Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc. v. City of St. Louis
644 F.3d 728
8th Cir.2011Background
- Neighborhood, SITO, and Roos challenged the City’s Board of Adjustment denial of a sign permit for a mural on a SITO-owned building; the mural reading “End Eminent Domain Abuse” is large and visible from major areas.
- The City and Board treated the mural as a sign under Chapter 26.68, and denied the permit citing size, location, and zoning requirements in the D district for multi-family dwellings.
- Sanctuary alleged the sign code’s provisions are facially and as-applied unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and Missouri Constitution; it sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, nominal damages, and fees, plus a writ of certiorari under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.110.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City and Board, holding the sign code restrictions withstand constitutional scrutiny.
- The Eighth Circuit reverses, holds the sign code’s definition of “sign” is impermissibly content-based, and applies strict scrutiny, finding the exemptions from regulation are not narrowly tailored, thus unconstitutional.
- The court remands to address severability of the unconstitutional provisions, rather than striking down the entire ordinance at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sign code’s restrictions are content-based and subject to strict scrutiny | Sanctuary contends the code targets speech by content, failing strict scrutiny | City/Board argue the code is content-neutral time/place/manner with intermediate scrutiny | Content-based; strict scrutiny applies; unconstitutional per se |
| Whether Sanctuary has standing to challenge the Sign Code | Sanctuary has standing to challenge provisions actually applied to its permit denial | Standing limited to provisions actually applied to Sanctuary | Sanctuary has standing to challenge the applied provisionsicifically §26.68.010, §26.68.020, §26.68.080, and related definitions. |
| Whether the district court should sever unconstitutional provisions or strike the entire Sign Code | Unconstitutional provisions should be severed | Unclear severability; consider whole code | Remand for severability determination; not compelled to strike entire Chapter 26.68 |
| Whether the sign code’s asserted traffic safety and aesthetics interests justify the restrictions | Interests are not compelling or narrowly tailored | Interests are significant and served by restrictions | Even if considered, interests are not compelling and the restrictions are not narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny |
| Whether the court should address writ of certiorari and other remedies | Writ should be granted for de novo review of the Board’s decision | Writ denial appropriate given constitutional issues | Remanded on severability; no disposition on writs beyond First Amendment ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) (signs are protected speech but subject to government interests)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) (content-based distinctions trigger heightened scrutiny)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (content-based exclusions require narrow tailoring and compelling interests)
- Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983) (strict scrutiny for content-based restrictions; least restrictive means)
- Green Party of Conn. v. Garfield, 616 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2010) (severability and scope considerations in constitutional challenges)
- Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2005) (traffic safety/aesthetics interests not always compelling; strict scrutiny applied)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981) (recognizes substantial governmental interests in traffic safety and appearance but requires careful tailoring)