Vosse v. City of New York, 666 F. App'x 11

Plaintiff Brigitte Vosse placed an illuminated peace symbol on the exterior frame of a 17th‑floor condominium window in Manhattan and was fined under New York City’s Zoning Resolution for illuminated signs above 40 feet.
Vosse sued the City and the NYC Department of Buildings Commissioner, alleging a First Amendment violation (content‑based and time/place/manner claims).
On initial appeal the Second Circuit held Vosse lacked standing to press a content‑based challenge and remanded to address whether the zoning rules were an unduly restrictive time, place, or manner restriction.
On remand the district court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding the illumination restrictions were content‑neutral, narrowly tailored to significant government interests, and left open ample alternative channels.
The Second Circuit reviewed the district court de novo, independently examined the record, and affirmed the judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the illumination regulations are narrowly tailored to a significant government interest	Vosse: aesthetic and neighborhood‑character interests are unsupported; the exemption for certain flags/banners shows underinclusiveness	City: preservation of aesthetics and neighborhood character is a legitimate interest; regulations need not be least restrictive and may target pressing concerns	Held: Regulations are narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests
Whether the regulations leave open ample alternative channels for communication	Vosse: City of Ladue compels finding inadequate alternatives because illumination is important for nighttime visibility	City: non‑illuminated, noncommercial signs under 12 sq ft remain permitted; First Amendment does not guarantee every mode/time/place	Held: Adequate alternatives exist; restriction permissible despite reduced nighttime visibility
Whether differential treatment of exempted speakers renders restriction unconstitutional	Vosse: exemption for civic flags/banners allows some illuminated displays above 40 ft, indicating impermissible underinclusiveness or content discrimination	City: Plaintiff lacks standing to press a content‑based challenge here; even accepting exemption, underinclusiveness does not defeat tailoring	Held: Issue not fatal to TPM analysis; exemption does not make regulation unconstitutional as applied

McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) (time/place/manner framework and tailoring discussion)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (narrow tailoring standard for content‑neutral restrictions)
City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) (invalidated ordinance that almost completely banned residential signs)
Heffron v. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640 (1981) (First Amendment does not guarantee communication at all times/places/manners)
Williams‑Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015) (government may address pressing concerns without solving entire problem)
Lusk v. Vill. of Cold Spring, 475 F.3d 480 (2d Cir. 2007) (recognizing preservation of aesthetic values as legitimate government interest)
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of New York, 594 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2010) (appellate review and First Amendment standards on summary judgment)
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984) (appellate courts’ independent obligation to review the whole record on First Amendment matters)