## Facts

- Austin’s sign code distinguished between “on-premises” signs (advertising activities located on the same premises) and “off-premises” signs (advertising or directing people to offsite locations).
- The code prohibited construction of new off-premises signs and treated existing off-premises billboards as nonconforming signs that could remain but could not be altered to increase nonconformity, including by digitization.
- On-premises signs were not subject to the same restriction and could be digitized.
- Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, and Lamar Advantage Outdoor Company, L.P., owned off-premises billboards and applied to convert them to digital displays.
- The City denied the applications under the sign code.
- The billboard owners sued, alleging the on-/off-premises digitization distinction violated the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether Austin’s on-/off-premises distinction is facially content-based under the First Amendment, triggering strict scrutiny.
2. Whether a regulation becomes content-based merely because an official must read a sign to determine whether it is permitted.
3. What standard of review applies to an on-/off-premises sign regulation framed as a location-based rule.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held the on-/off-premises distinction is facially content-neutral and therefore not automatically subject to strict scrutiny.
- The Court rejected a reading of prior precedent that would treat any rule requiring an official to read a sign as content-based.
- The Court left for further proceedings whether the ordinance is unconstitutional under the appropriate standard for content-neutral regulations (including whether it fails intermediate scrutiny or is invalid based on purpose or application).

## Legal Principles

- A regulation is content-based when it applies to speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.
- A location-based sign rule can be content-neutral even if determining its applicability may require reading the sign.
- Prior precedent concerning sign regulations does not create a mechanical “read-the-sign” test that automatically triggers strict scrutiny.
- Facial content neutrality means strict scrutiny is not automatic; courts may instead evaluate the law under standards applicable to content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Austin’s prohibition on digitizing off-premises signs, while allowing digitization of on-premises signs, is facially content-neutral because it turns on the sign’s relationship to its location rather than subject matter; the case was remanded for further review under the proper content-neutral standard.


City of Austin, Tex. v. Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022)