Archives

Must All Signs Be the Same?

Posted in Case Notes Commentary IMLA Briefs on November 25, 2014 By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

The Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona could upset sign codes nationally. Most sign codes, like Gilbert’s, include different categories of temporary signs. It makes sense, for example, to give people more time to remove thousands of election signs and less time to remove a few yard sale signs. In this case the Court will decide whether local governments may regulate temporary directional signs differently than other temporary signs. The Court could rule, practically speaking, that all temporary signs must have the same time, place, and manner requirements. IMLA joined the State and Local Legal Center’s (SLLC) amicus brief asking the Court not to go that far.

Gilbert’s Sign Code includes temporary directional signs, political signs, and ideological signs. After being notified that its temporary directional signs announcing the time and location of church services were displayed longer than allowed, the Good News church sued Gilbert. The church claimed Gilbert’s Sign Code violates the First Amendment because temporary directional signs receive the less favorable treatment (in terms of size, location, duration, etc.) than political signs and ideological signs. Continue reading →

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Buffer Zone Law

Posted in Case Notes on June 26, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Barricade A local government can create a 35-foot buffer zone to restrict speech on a public street only if it has first made a serious effort to address the issue in other ways.

That’s the lesson of McCullen v. Coakley, the Supreme-Court decision today that strikes down a Massachusetts statute that makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a public way or sidewalk within 35 feet of a location where abortions are performed.

Although the Court found that the law is content-neutral—and therefore not subject to strict scrutiny—the Court ruled that the Commonwealth had “too readily foregone options” that would not substantially burden speech.

What are those options? Continue reading →

Monday Morning Review: Local Governments in the Federal Appellate Courts

Posted in Monday Morning Review on April 7, 2014 By Kira Klatchko

Here are last week’s published decisions involving local governments:

Second Circuit

The Bronx Household of Faith v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York, No. 12-2730 (Apr. 3, 2014) (reversing district court’s decision and ruling that school may refuse to allow its facilities to be used for religious worship). See this post from Evan Seeman and Dwight Merriam at the RLUIPA Defense blog.
T.M. v. Cornwall Central School District, No. 12-4301 (Apr. 2, 2014) (finding that district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the school district was not required under the Individuals with Disabilties Education Act to offer student a mainstream extended school year program simply because it does not offer such a program.).

Fourth Circuit

EEOC v. Baltimore County, No. 13-1106 (Mar. 31, 2014) (finding that county retirement plan unlawfully Continue reading →

Eighth Circuit: Restricting Bible Distribution During Festival Likely Violates First Amendment

Posted in Case Notes on September 16, 2013 By Kira Klatchko

8th Circuit: Park did not adequately justify the need to limit literature distribution

An evangelical Christian, Brian Johnson, sought to distribute Bibles at a gay-pride festival in a public park.

The park board would not allow it.

It had adopted a policy limiting literature distribution to confined areas, due to security concerns and the festival’s size.

Johnson claimed the policy violated the First Amendment, and sought an injunction barring its enforcement. In a 2-1 decision released Wednesday, Johnson v. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Bd., the Eighth Circuit ruled that Johnson would likely prevail on his claim.

Continue reading →

How To Close a First Amendment Public Forum: Does a Local Government’s Intent Matter?

Posted in Case Notes on August 19, 2013 By Kira Klatchko

Fourth Circuit: a local government can “close” a public forum with a neutral policy, regardless of its intent.

Your City has flag standards on light poles. They line the City streets.

For over 15 years, you have allowed private parties to use this property to place their own flags.

Now you have a problem.

A group wants to use this City property to fly the Confederate flag during a City parade. The public is fiercely opposed.

After your City council first approved the request, it changed course. Its new policy restricts flag-standard use to three flags: the American, State, and City flags.

The group sued. It claimed that the City’s change violates its First Amendment rights.

Can you successfully defend the City’s policy?

In a similar case, the Fourth Circuit recently said yes.

Continue reading →