Thomas v. Schroer
116 F. Supp. 3d 869
W.D. Tenn.2015Background
- Plaintiff William H. Thomas Jr. contests TDOT’s removal orders for several outdoor signs, asserting First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations; he claims certain noncommercial/on‑premise signs are exempt under the Billboard Regulation and Control Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 54‑21‑101 et seq.).
- TDOT sought removal of the Crossroads Ford sign via enforcement proceedings in Shelby County Chancery Court; TDOT gave Thomas notice to remove the structure by June 26, 2015 and circulated a proposed judgment/ injunction form.
- Thomas filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court to prevent removal and execution of any related judgments; defendants opposed. A TRO hearing occurred on June 18, 2015.
- The central legal question is whether key Billboard Act provisions (notably the on‑premise exemption § 54‑21‑107(a)(1) and related exceptions in § 54‑21‑103) are facially content‑based under Reed v. Town of Gilbert and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
- The court found a strong likelihood that those provisions are content‑based and fail strict scrutiny; it also concluded the provisions are likely not severable under Tennessee law.
- The court granted Thomas’s TRO, enjoining TDOT and its agents from removing the Crossroads Ford sign or executing related judgments pending further proceedings; a scheduling conference for a preliminary injunction hearing was set.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Billboard Act’s on‑premise exemption (§ 54‑21‑107(a)(1)) and related exceptions are content‑based under the First Amendment | The exemptions require examination of sign content (on‑premise vs off‑premise or topic) and thus are facially content‑based under Reed | The statute is a permissible regulation of signage for safety/aesthetics and not subject to strict scrutiny | Court: The exemptions are facially content‑based under Reed and thus trigger strict scrutiny; strong likelihood of success for plaintiff |
| Whether the content‑based provisions survive strict scrutiny (compelling interest/narrow tailoring) | Traffic safety and aesthetic interests do not justify content‑based distinctions; off‑premise and on‑premise signs are equally intrusive | Government asserts compelling interests (traffic safety, aesthetics) justify the distinctions | Court: As in Reed, provided interests (even if compelling) are undermined by underinclusiveness; provisions likely fail strict scrutiny |
| Whether unconstitutional provisions are severable from the rest of the Billboard Act under Tennessee law | Plaintiff implicitly favors severance (to preserve enforcement otherwise) | Defendants assert the statute can remain with the offending exemptions removed | Court: Under Tennessee severability rules, it is not clear the legislature would have enacted the Act without those core provisions; likely not severable |
| Whether a TRO should be issued (irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) and whether federal court relief is barred by the Anti‑Injunction Act | Removal of the sign would irreparably harm First Amendment rights; TRO is necessary pending merits; § 1983 relief fits the expressly authorized exception to the Anti‑Injunction Act | TDOT warns of potential loss of federal funding and argues federalism concerns/Anti‑Injunction Act bar | Court: Irreparable harm established; public interest favors TRO; Anti‑Injunction Act does not bar relief (Mitchum exception); TRO granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (facial content‑based sign restrictions trigger strict scrutiny)
- Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) (§ 1983 claims fall within the Anti‑Injunction Act’s expressly authorized exception)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (loss of First Amendment freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) (severability principles favor narrowing remedies and limiting invalidation when possible)
- Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2007) (framework for severability and restraint in judicially reworking statutes)