Reed v. Town of Gilbert
135 S. Ct. 2218
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Gilbert, Ariz., Sign Code generally bans outdoor signs without a permit but exempts 23 categories, including: Ideological signs (broadly allowed, larger, no time limits); Political signs (size and election‑season time limits); and Temporary Directional signs for "qualifying events" (strict size, number, and narrow time limits).
- Good News Community Church (Reed) posts small temporary directional signs before weekly services at varying locations; Town cited the Church for exceeding time limits and for missing event dates on signs.
- Church sued under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; district court denied preliminary relief; Ninth Circuit held the Code content neutral and applied intermediate scrutiny, upholding the restrictions.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Sign Code’s category‑based distinctions are content based and what level of scrutiny applies.
- The Court held the Code facially content based because it classifies signs by the message/topic and subjects categories to different rules; therefore strict scrutiny applies and the Code fails that test (underinclusiveness re: aesthetics and safety).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sign Code is content‑based on its face | The categories regulate signs based on their message/topic (directional, political, ideological) so facially content based | The distinctions are neutral (speaker/event/time) and do not target viewpoints or ideas | The Code is facially content based because it defines categories by communicative content; strict scrutiny applies |
| Whether a benign purpose avoids strict scrutiny for a facially content‑based law | Reed: facial content‑based distinctions trigger strict scrutiny regardless of government motive | Town: if regulation can be justified without reference to content (Ward), it is content neutral | The Court: motive/justification cannot convert a facially content‑based law into content neutral; must first assess facial content neutrality |
| Whether the Code discriminates only by viewpoint (and thus is less problematic) | Reed: subject‑matter distinctions alone are forbidden; viewpoint neutrality does not save a content‑based law | Town: it does not single out viewpoints—treats all viewpoints within categories equally | The Court: viewpoint neutrality is distinct but does not permit subject‑matter discrimination; forbidding an entire topic is content based |
| Whether the Code survives strict scrutiny (compelling interest and narrow tailoring) | Reed: Town cannot show compelling, narrowly tailored justification; Code is underinclusive | Town: interests in aesthetics and traffic safety justify distinctions | The Court: even assuming compelling interests, the Code is underinclusive and not narrowly tailored (permits other categories that produce same harms); fails strict scrutiny |
Key Cases Cited
- R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (content‑based restrictions are presumptively unconstitutional)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health, 564 U.S. 552 (2011) (law is content based if it draws distinctions based on message/topic)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (intermediate scrutiny applies to content‑neutral time, place, manner restrictions and considers purpose)
- Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410 (1993) (facially content‑based laws are unlawful regardless of benign motive)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (speaker‑based distinctions can mask content preferences and warrant strict scrutiny)
- NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (regulatory pretexts cannot justify laws that abridge expression)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (analysis of content neutrality and application of Ward framework)
- Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (content‑neutral rules may ban signs on public property if evenhanded)
- City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) (broad sign restrictions can raise serious First Amendment concerns)
- Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002) (underinclusiveness undermines asserted compelling interests)