the only case that we have listed this morning is adams outdoor advertising ltd versus pennsylvania department of transportation mr c that the regulations relating to on and off premise songs is content based what your best evidence of the record suggested it  would be that in order to know how the song is regulated you necessarily need to review the message but there are examples of the records or of signs that that would suggest that this is a content based driven analysis that is my whole case i get that so we're on the record should we look for support well the very fact that  what happens under the act is that with respect to off premise signs they are limited in a variety of ways location size spacing with respect to on premise signs along federally primary highways there is no regulation at all and the administrator for the pennsylvania highway beautification act that tend to acknowledge that with respect to an on premise sign adjacent to where near an interchange there is no regulation at all she acknowledges that it can be a advertises a commercial activity at the site with respect to an offering a sign it usually advertises some other activity elsewhere but all obviously also provides a political speech social speech and so if you got a look at the message on the sign to know whether or not it can lie adjacent to interchange then in my view that's content based on adams of you that's content based regulation and i wasn't smart enough to think that figure that out that has been the position adopted very real challenging cases that should be addressed the secretary suggests fact argues that you or your client that we can't speak at this particular location which we call the google excite so this is along us twenty two it's ad or near its intersection with the pennsylvania route five twelve and what happens is that a permit for this off premise on was denied but then on premises on and there are many at that particular intersection that lie adjacent to the intersection itself had no limitation the size under the one nine hundred seventy one law there are photographs in the record and testimony about the on premise signs that are at that intersection one re hotel another relates to an automobile or going a little east there is another intersection and there are again on premise signs that are adjacent to and actually within the  area for any changes and so as a result of how this law is structured there's winners or losers and it is that which adams believes gives rise to the unconstitutionality and the lower court in the course secretary richards suggests that it's content neutral and the lower court cites highway safety as a governmental interest that's being advanced if if the off premise sign is deny but you can put in on print a sign they're having us sign area of  million square feet how is that governmental interested vance's not obviously advanced at all so if this is the statutory exemptions applied to this particular intersection this is a  federally primary us twenty two great you've got us one you've got us to go to in this area so there are criteria that relate to the off premise signs and certain standards that as affecting your case my only point there judge was that it focuses on the the the sensitivity of the u s supreme court with respect to protecting free speech is not exactly on point but again i think it stands for the proposition if you've got a look in message and if you go look at the content to figure out how it's how it's going to be regulated under the law three concurrences with the justice alito and two other justices saying that a provision distinguishing between on premise and off permit signs is not content based quote and it was joined by justices kennedy as sort of my or have been justice kagan suggest that she would view this kind of regulation involved as content neutral that was joined by justices breyer and ginsburg so it sounds like you might have six justices saying that what we've got here if you apply it to here by analogy it's content neutral  let me just say this in response to that there is a provision in the pennsylvania act that speaks to divided highways this particular road highway is divided now i can understand if there is not a divided highway and there are business is necessarily that depend on the access from the highway there there might be a justification for they for allowing the off premise signed the liberality if we're going off premise something but this particular case all of the on premise signs that are adjacent to the interchange they have other public ways to gain access i don't know when the justices speak to on premise signs what this situation is what they're addressing but i think that there is something particular in the  neutral if it is a must say you're agreeing that then what level of scrutiny do you have well again the lower court said it's public safety and i mind i what level of scrutiny will get to that oh it had me scrutiny the time place and manner yes and so if it's in a media scrutiny then oh it has to be as narrowly tailored just to serve a significant government interest it isn't there a significant government interest here certainly there is public safety you know pentagon certainly has a do this with respect to public safety but under the regulations and the way that the law is structured how is that advanced that it is in many many respects content based and i speak to this in my brief i think i'm running out of time i just would like to very briefly talk about the vagueness argument and  again doesn't the ninety seven letter penned make it crystal clear what it with this is about i don't see the vagueness is what i'm saying how is that matt penn dot needed to go back and forth for different time which i don't understand that argument you have raised why does the fact that an administrative agency in this case and not has changed the regulation from time to time introduced the notion of vagueness that it ministr agencies change their interpretations frequently they may do it for sheer political reasons but that doesn't dictate a conclusion that legally to be engaging in advocacy or or or policy decisions i mean i think that they've got a law they've got to administer and there's lots of play in the joints for an administrative agency to administer a law that they they don't go about doing their work based on a code that answers every single question but this is a basic question at the you have a spacing to an interchange  the same side as where the sign is located or both sides thereby magically opposed well i think a lot of my time i'm sorry we'll have you back a little thank you thank you on the first amendment challenge to the aspect of the pennsylvania statute whereby one who directs an arm off premise sinus adams is in the business of doing has to comply with the interchange prohibition assume you mean the nine categories that are permitted and under certain conditions and the set the set subsequent section of the law goes on to say that there are size spacing and lighting requirements applicable to the types of signs permitted under clause roman little roman numeral four five and six of the preceding section so there are three of those nine categories that must comply with the size spacing and lighting criteria that are found it section twenty seven one two two seven one eight point one five the enterprise interchange prohibition is one of those criteria so there it is true if what you're getting at it is true that the interchange prohibit of the statute doesn't apply to on premises signs and when you think about it that's kind of logical because an on premises in is one that is on premises that already exist in a certain location and that the location can't changed that you can pass a sign or not have a sign but the location can't be adjusted so carving that out is not irrational at all in any event that's what we have in this particular statute but i think the statute is content neutral and therefore should be in a media scrutiny correct that you took the words right out of mouth so what evidence did you submit to justify the prohibition concerning the relevant government interests here and there are tailing narrow tailoring and the availability of other channels of communication the words what did you submit to show what th significant government interest is would start with that significant government interest that this was narrowly tailored to achieve those interests which was anything submitted i know you're saying you can still try to find it but i was not writing it i hate to say it but i was not the trial attorney so i don't know exactly what was submitted i think the arguments were primarily based on case law that recognizes that certain situations give rise to adequate showings in the situation that if that's the case isn't it in this call for  key to that issue is found and read of course and that case tells us that whether a law is content neutral or not depends on whether it draws distinctions between or based on what somebody can say an actual message for communicate of content read it physically allows for the fact that not all distinctions in signing laws are content to paste the limits says on quote size building materials lighting moving parts and so on are content neutral and that's the kind of distinction that is drawn here in the manner that judges strip i was asking about earlier that on premises signs don't have to comply with the interchange prohibition both justice alito and reed and also in this court's earlier rapid decision reinforce this conclusion and there are other cases as well that make it clear that an on premises off premises distinction in and of itself cannot be considered content based no rapid distinguishes on premises between saying that it's content based if it's for sale or lease but it's content neutral if it's to talk about or tell us about activities on on premises grokked i'm sure you're clearly whether that distinction for on premises between say our least being content based and activities being content neutral survives i think that wrapper has not called into question by ten gilbert but obviously if there is a discrepancy not to go but if you look at justice alito those concurrence that on premises first off premise is content neutral right yes and that's that's why i'm saying that if if were up a said otherwise then it reverses time gilbert trumps rapid that's the way the the alito opinion which was a concurrence did not disagree with the result and it did join in the judge and it because of that particular case because the facts of that particular case then would disagree with the result in the facts of that particular case but in talking about what kind of guidelines can you possibly can you lay down for future cases and that's what i'm struck with well i think what i would suggest is that as i said wrap oh excuse me read itself on page two two two two does recognize that not all distinctions and signed laws are content based and i think judge a list of a variety of distinctions that are permissible is a response to that more general statement in an explanation of examples from his perspective of the kinds of distinctions that are not content based because they have nothing to do with the message being conveyed they are related to the way it is conveyed not the subject or excuse me the details are that the the testimony of adams is representative and her statement that it was it was essentially outrageous because on premises science can do anything they want even having signs as large as a million square feet but i think that's not a fair reading of her testimony and i'd like to emphasize that she exclaimed that adams is off premises s and she's a representative of adam's cover all subjects and messages commercial political advocacy not a commercial religious public service and so on and she also acknowledged that as long as the it happens on premises so do the signs of those who erect on premises science they too can present commercial political public service messages and they  if the premises earned gauged in that sort of business or activity adams position is that you have to read the sign excuse me you have to i guess he's talking about reading the sign it's actually not clear whether returning that reading this is the sign or reading the statute to decide whether something is content based but i don't believe that's the proper mode of analysis frankly if you take that view and run into trouble because of course you have to remind the material in front of you when you're making a judgement or a decision otherwise there's no way to know whether the law has any potential bearing in the situation it's presented but this is only the first step under the pennsylvania statute you have to decide whether a particular sign qualifies as a as a member of a particular category namely on premises or off premises and if the mere act of reading the sign next to the statute were determinative then everything would be considered content b you always read that can't be the right analysis or the right outcome what matters and in this case or in cases like it is whether a sign or a billboard falls into one to for the time you have left to deal with the issue that district court held that the pennsylvania by awaits the first amendment by not including the time limit for and out decisions on permit applications it adopted in an internal guideline calling for decisions within sixty days and spelling out that there how that would work so that's not only send but button adams seems to be asking for more than just a decision doesn't it say if if you read the blue brief at least as i did there seemed to be a suggestion that the court to go even farther and that is to do essentially what the general assembly to do well i know what you're referring to and i think that the court to act and to bring this statute into a such a condition as to meet the concerns of that that's correct i think that the judge made a detour sensible resolution of that penned out did what the judge said to do and i don't believe this court can order anybody but penned out to do anything else and penn dot doesn't have the power to change the statute itself  aside from that aspect of the remedy that is or isn't sufficient depending on whose whose side you're on the only other part of this case that we haven't touched on is the big argument and i if you have any questions i'll try to answer them but otherwise i would rest on my sleep instead well i am concerned conceding standing up up to a point i think the just the decision of nobody and you can mean to be glib your honor i what i was trying to get at is that the standing issue in the district court decision was pretty narrow it where it said that adams did not have standing to question exemptions for types of signs that adams does not deal with but the court did not find that adams lacked standing outright and there was no problem concerning adams standing to challenge the act on the other issues in the case we certainly had no difficulty finding standing in the the real rapper right that's correct and no one has to raise it it's left to us if it hasn't been raised and because its jurisdiction so right there isn't really a standing issue to be debated here at the standing to challenge it the provisions about you know official signs or directional signs or other kinds of signs among those categories is irrelevant because that's not what this case is about thank you very much tha that on premise signs because of their nature that there is a intermediate basis to allow them  n intermediate scrutiny the bottom line of all of this is if there is a wal mart that's adjacent to and interchange it can put a sign there right next to the interchange itself it can be a million square feet that didn't come from adams that came from the administrator of panda when she was asked well how large can the sign be and eventually she got frustrated with my questions and said well it could be a million square feet so and again the concept of content based i mean the only way you know if it's an on premise sign is to look at  smith who's running for sheriff he doesn't have that same opportunity and the law is very clear that if there is a disparity among people as far as their ability to speak that its in congress even forget the constitutionality but does it make any sense that a walmart sign has no limitation at all can be adjacent to the interchange can be as high as it they wanted to be given the regulations  and that's not that's not easy for you to do and it's presumptuous on my part to ask for that but i just think that that's the remedy here lastly with respect to the the failure to give notice  the court cannot direct the pennsylvania legislature perhaps but what it can do is say apps well no but what i was going to say is but what it can do is say that the permit regulations shall not be enforceable unless and until the pennsylvania legislature deals with this deficit in the law so unless your honour's have other questions for me i appreciate your attention thank you very much