Facts
- A town adopted a sign code that generally required permits for outdoor signs but exempted multiple categories with different restrictions.
- The code treated three categories differently: (1) “ideological” signs (larger and unlimited duration), (2) “political” signs (larger and allowed during defined election periods), and (3) “temporary directional” signs for qualifying events (including nonprofit meetings such as church services) that were limited to smaller size and a short display window.
- A small church without a permanent building posted temporary roadside signs directing attendees to weekly services and removed them shortly after.
- The town cited the church for violating the temporary directional sign rules, including time restrictions and other requirements.
- The church and its pastor sued, alleging the code violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the town, and the court of appeals affirmed, treating the code as content neutral and applying intermediate scrutiny.
- The Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
- Whether the sign code’s differing rules for ideological, political, and temporary directional signs were content-based regulations of speech on their face.
- If facially content based, whether the code could survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment.
- Whether benign governmental purposes (traffic safety and aesthetics) could make a facially content-based sign code content neutral.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held the code was facially content based because enforcement depended on a sign’s message to determine which rules applied.
- Because the distinctions turned on the topic or message expressed, strict scrutiny applied regardless of the town’s asserted benign motives or justifications.
- Assuming without deciding that traffic safety and aesthetics could qualify as compelling interests, the Court held the code was not narrowly tailored and therefore failed strict scrutiny.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
Legal Principles
- A regulation is content based if it applies to speech because of “the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.”
- Facial content-based classifications trigger strict scrutiny even if the government claims content-neutral motives, justifications, or lack of hostility toward any ideas.
- Content discrimination includes subject-matter discrimination, not only viewpoint discrimination.
- Under strict scrutiny, the government must show the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest; treating certain topics more harshly than others without adequate fit is insufficient.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated the town’s sign code provisions that imposed different size and timing limits based on a sign’s subject matter, holding that facial content-based restrictions on speech require strict scrutiny and, on this record, were not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest.