By Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor
A preview of a case that will be heard tomorrow in the SCOTUS: Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
Question: Can a town impose more regulations on religious signs posted on public streets than political, ideological, or property signs?
10-cent explanation: The town of Gilbert, Arizona has municipal codes about when, where, and for how long signs can be displayed in town. If you’re a candidate running for elected office, your campaign sign can remain in public for an unlimited amount of time. If the town posts signs reminding citizens what day to vote, they can be posted four and a half months prior to the date and up to 15 days after. Got a sign advertising an HOA meeting? Those can stay out 30 days before the meeting and must be taken down 48 hours after. But if the pastor of a local church in Gilbert, adorably called the Good News Community Church, wants to put signs out to remind people of upcoming services, he has only 12 hours before the event to display it and must take it down within an hour after the event or risk penalties. There are also regulations on the sizes of the signs. Good News signs can’t be more than six square feet whereas HOA signs can be 80 square feet, political signs 32 square feet, and ideological signs 20 square feet. These regulations also apply to signs for nonprofit, charitable, and educational organizations.
The question the Court will answer on Monday, January 12th, 2015 is whether or not Gilbert’s sign codes violate the church’s 1st Amendment rights protecting free speech. This case brings to mind a recent decision about buffer zones and the free speech rights of protestors outside abortion clinics in Massachusetts (McCullen v. Coakley). Massachusetts’ law banning protestors from crossing the 35-foot buffer zone was struck down and the majority (8-1) ruled, “Government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” In Reed, as in McCullen, the Court is asked to decide whether laws restricting speech are permissible because they are content-neutral. In order to determine what kind of sign and thus the length of time it can be posted, a Gilbert official must read the content, interpret the message, and make the call. The Court almost never supports empowering agents of government with the right to interpret and make such decisions. No doubt attorneys for Good News will argue Gilbert’s restrictions on religious signs is akin to a government entity giving preferential treatment to political and secular groups over religious groups.
Noisy street signs – political, ideological, religious, commercial, or HOA – are a nuisance. Gilbert’s sign restrictions are intended to mitigate the proliferation of such distractions. Less distracted drivers mean fewer accidents and a safer community. They’ll likely argue in Court that greater time allowances and bigger signs for political and noncommercial signs are because those messages serve a wider audience of voting and home owning citizens, unlike the Church’s intended audience, which is smaller, encompassing its parishioners and, perhaps, the religiously unaffiliated. Gilbert has support having won in the district court and the 9th Circuit affirmed.
An hour hardly seems enough time for a pastor of a small church to finish his sermon, say goodbye to his flock, and make it out there in time to grab the signs before receiving a ticket from Gilbert police for violating the sign code. Frankly, Gilbert’s inconsistent sign regulations make a reversal of the lower court decisions and win seem like a lock for the church. My guess is that Good News will receive very good news in the Court’s decision this spring. [Zing!]
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Paul C., so you think there is reasonable speech? I think a sign about services on Sunday being in front of the church on Saturday is not only reasonable, but might get a bigger crowd. Churches generally keep their property clean. And, are these signs in big enough print so seniors with bad eyesight can read them?
Just having fun!
Sandi – as a senior citizen I can easily read the sign at least 100 feet. Today as I was driving through the community, I saw five businesses who had like signs out advertising their business. Those signs will come in at the end of business.
Is this the crowd that was insisting we stand by freedom of speech?
Interesting. I find most of the weekend contributions much better than those during the week. The comments, not so much.
I feel that had the town made their church sign ordinance less restrictive and more closely aligned with the other ordinances we would not be having this discussion. The ordinances are, of course, designed to make the roads safer but, content should not be a factor. If content is a factor, that is a restriction of free speech.
Sharon – the Town of Gilbert requires sandwich board signs for all businesses to be the same size, including churches. Sounds fair to me. BTW, the Town of Gilbert has a population of about 225,000 but likes to retain the feel of being a town rather than a city.
“They’ll likely argue in Court that greater time allowances and bigger signs for political and noncommercial signs are because those messages serve a wider audience of voting and home owning citizens, unlike the Church’s intended audience, which is smaller, encompassing its parishioners and, perhaps, the religiously unaffiliated.”
Why would a smaller target audience have less rights than a larger one?
I believe that there should be an across the board regulation on all signs, and make no distinction whether it’s political, religious, or commercial.
That way it’s fair.
Great article. I hope you let us know how it turns out.
Eleazer Bryan, I agree. I usually skip over the weekend contributions.
“Eleazer Bryan:
For the umpteenth time, Prof. Turley has no involvement in the selection of topics by weekend contributors. That is precisely the point of the disclaimer appearing at the conclusion of weekend columns.” Mike Appleton
I was expressing refreshment at his pick of weekend contributor. He apparently picked someone who would choose to run a piece like this which is a credit to Mr. Turley.
It will make me tune in more on the weekend.
My guess is Good News gets favorable treatment, although without having read the 9th Cir. opinion, I’m a bit surprised that the restriction was upheld as a safety issue or on any other ground for that matter. It seems the distinctions in regulation of different types of non-commercial content are arbitrary.
Appleton’s argument makes good sense to me re complacency when a law is unfair but is working for the time being,
It will be interesting to see the rule that comes out of this case, but I bet it’s opaque and deals with this issue narrowly, unfortunately. Why not just have sign location/size/duration restrictions equally-administered if the content is non-commercial?
The First Amendment certainly has become a complicated area of the law, when perhaps it doesn’t have to be.
Church wins. This is pretty much a “no brainer.” And should be for a sign put up by a mosque as well. My favorite church sign: “Do you know what Hell is? Come hear our new organist.”
Don de Drain – this is not as clear cut a case as one would think our the SC would not have taken it. I think it is even money.
The church will win its case, and that ought not come as a suprise to anyone. The truth is that most constitutional violations are local. There are literally thousands of county and city ordinances across the country that could not survive constitutional challenges, but which remain on the books because people do not regard them as sufficiently important to warrant the time and expense of a court challenge.
Sign ordinances are particularly problematic because they are frequently enacted to reflect aesthetic, rather than safety, concerns. And aesthetic judgments are inherently subjective. But most people do not wish to live in an environment littered with signs and billboards, so the imposition of restrictions becomes acceptable.
MikeA, Eleazer was expressing joy in some diversity of opinion on weekends. Whether you can see it or not, there has been a paucity of it for years. Let’s celebrate some much needed diversity, and not lecture someone expressing her gratuity. Thank you.
I still see political signs, John Kerry for President. WTF? This is about people not wanting a sign they don’t like, it ain’t about signs! And, I pray[ball bust intended] SCOTUS sees it as it is.
Nick – they do police the political signs within the timeline and within the guidelines.
It is good that now we know what and why the signs are a problem since the churches do NOT have property of their own. The signs are put up on store fronts and abandoned or other use buildings. I am against such an ordinance, but there seems to be some rational concern behind it. I assume that after the service is over, if the signs are not removed, they will stay up until the next week or month or whatever time the pastor sees fit to take it down. It is too bad that more common sense was not used since I am sure an agreement could have been reached with the parties before it hit the courts.
randyjet – these are little sandwich signs that are left on the sidewalk. The grade school near me rents out to a church and their sandwich board is out Sunday morning before church and back in after.
Eleazer Bryan:
For the umpteenth time, Prof. Turley has no involvement in the selection of topics by weekend contributors. That is precisely the point of the disclaimer appearing at the conclusion of weekend columns.
I agree with you Tyger. Thanks