The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a town sign ordinance in Arizona that had been challenged by a small church congregation on free speech grounds.
At issue was the ordinance in the town of Gilbert that treated political signs, ideological signs and directional signs differently.
The congregation, led by Pastor Clyde Reed, consists of only about 30 worshippers and is so financially hamstrung that it meets in temporary facilities. As such, it often posts temporary signs to direct parishioners where services will be held.
According to the ordinance, the church’s directional signs must be limited to 6 square feet, and they can only be displayed for up to 12 hours before the service.
Political signs in the town, however, are allowed to be up to 32 square feet and can be erected any time before the election.
The town had argued that the different treatment of the types of signs was not based on content but meant to give the town more leeway in enhancing safety and avoiding clutter on roadsides.
The Church argued, however, that the ordinance impermissibly treated its signs less favorably based on their content.
On Thursday, a unanimous Court agreed with the Church.
In this opinion, Thomas noted that the town had the burden to demonstrate that the code’s differentiation between its temporary signs furthered a compelling governmental interest and was narrowly tailored to that end.
“Content-based laws—those that target speech based on its communicative content—are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government provides that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.
“The Town cannot do so,” he said.
He pointed out that the church’s signs are “not greater an eyesore” than the political signs. And he noted that a “sharply worded” sign with a political message “seems more likely to distract a driver than a sign directing the public to a nearby church meeting.”
“Ideological messages are given more favorable treatment than messages concerning a political candidate, which are themselves given more favorable treatment than messages announcing an assembly of like-minded individuals,” he said. “That is a paradigmatic example of content-based discrimination.”
The ruling might be a loss for the Town of Gilbert, but the Court sent a message to other towns across the country that they still have some leeway in regulating signs.
Clarence E. Anthony, the CEO of the National League of Cities criticized the decision.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court wreaks havoc on the ability of local governments to implement sign code regulations that are responsive to the needs of their communities. Common sense sign codes, like those in Gilbert, are commonly used to protect the safety, attractiveness and economic vitality of a community. We’re disappointed that the Supreme Court has now made it harder for local governments to do their job,”he said in a statement.
But Thomas said that the decision does not prevent governments from enacting effective sign laws.
“A sign ordinance narrowly tailored to the challenges of protecting the safety of pedestrians, drivers and passengers—such as warning signs marking hazards on private property, sings directing traffic, or street numbers associated with private houses—” could well survive scrutiny from the Courts, he said.
Gregory M. Lipper, Senior Litigation Counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the decision reflected a “straightforward” application of the free speech clause. “The government can’t make it easier to display signs about certain topics and harder to display signs about other topics,” he said.
Lipper said the opinion had little to do with the fact that the challenge was brought by a church. “The result would be the same if the ordinance were challenged by a bowling league or a book club,” he said.
