P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________

___________ N o. 08- 4425

____________ M E L R O S E , IN C .,

A ppel l ant

v. CI T Y OF P I T T S BU RG H; CI T Y OF P I T T S BU RG H Z O N IN G B O A R D O F A D JU S T M E N T ; C L IF F O R D B . L E V IN E , E S Q .; R E G IS D . M U R R IN , E S Q .; J E S S E W . F IF E , J R .,

___________ O n A ppeal fr om the D i s t r i ctC our tforthe W e ste rn D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 02- cv- 01161) D istric t Ju d g e : Jo yF lo w e rs C o n ti
A r gued J anuary25, 2010H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U nit ed S t at es D i s t r i ct * J udge fort he East ern D istr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. 2 B efor e: FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and D I A M O N D , D i s t r i ctJ udge.

* ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y20, 2010)
H ow ar d R

. L ehman, E s q. ( A r gued) 6 5 7 6 R o se m o o r S t. Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15217
C ouns el forA ppel l ant
L aw r ence H

. B aumi l l er , E s q. ( A r gued) G eor ge R

. Spect er , E s q. C i t yof Pi t t s bur gh D epart m entof Law 313 C i t y - C ount yB ui l di ng 414 G r antSt r eet Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219
C ouns el forA ppel l ees

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT3 FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: M el r os e, I nc. ( “ M e l r o s e ” ) b r o u g h tth i s a c t i on chal l engi ng th e P itt sb u rg h Z o n in g B o a rd ’s r e je c ti o n o f

its a p p lica tio n s to chan ge the I den t i fi cat io n S i gn s on five P i t t sburgh b uil dings. T h e pr opos ed bui l di ng names i ncl uded “w ehi r enur s es . com b u il d in g ” a n d “p aleg alhe lp.com

. ” T h e Z o n ing B o ard d eterm ined that the s ign s w er e A d v erti sing S ign s an d w ere there fo re p roh ibit ed in the zo n ing d istri cts w h ere M elrose ’s bui l di ngs w er e l ocat ed. I n r eac hi ng thi s deci s i on, the Z o n i ng B oar d a p p l i e d f

o u rc r i t e r i a t h a ti th a d a r t i c u l a t e d i n a p r i or d e c isio n f

o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a sig n w ith a d v e rtisin g a sp e c ts coul d s t i l l be cl as s i fied as a genui ne I dent i fi cat i on Si gn. M el r os e cha l l enged t hi s deci s i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , ar gui ng t hatt h e Zo n i n g Boa r d ’ s r e j e c t i o n o f

i t s s i g n a p p l i c a t i ons v io late d its F ir s t A m e n d m e n t f re e sp e e c h a n d F o u rte e n th A m endmentequal pr ot ect i on r i ght s . T he D i s t r i ct C our tr ej ect ed M el r os e’ s cl ai m s , appl y i ng C e n tra l H u d so n G a s & E lec tric C orp. v. P ub l i c C om m issi on of N ew Y ork , 4 4 7 U

. S

. 5 5 7 (19 8 0 ), w hi ch pr ovi des t he s t andar d foras s es s i ng r es t r i ct i ons on c o m m e rc ia l s p e e c h

. I n ourvi ew , M el r os e’ s Fi r s tA m endmentclaim i s not c o n t r o l l e d b y C entr alH uds on , buti ns t ead s houl d be eva l uat ed under t he t es tw e del i neat ed i n R a p p a v
. N e w C a stle C o u n ty , 18 F. 3d 1043 ( 3d C i r . 1994)

. A p pl y i ng R appa , w e hol d t hatthe Z oni ng B oar d’ s appl i cat i on of the cr i t er i a const itut ed a perm i s s i bl e “c ont ext

- s ens i t i ve” a nal y s i s . W e al s o concl ude that M e lro se ’s e q u a l p ro tec tio n c laim s m u st fa il a s M e lro se is s im p ly nots i m i l ar l ysi tuat ed t o the ent i t i es t hati tcl ai m s w er e tr eat ed di ffe r ent l y . A ccor di ngl y , w e affi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.T he fi r s tl eas e gr ant ed M el r os e nami ng r i ght s t o 840 1 E as tO hi o St r eet for appr oxi m at el y fi ft een y ear s , fr om M ay27, 1998 t o J une 30, 2013. T he s econd l eas e, for1025- 1033 B eave r A v e n u e , w a s e n ter e d o n Ju ly8 , 1 9 9 8 a n d g ra n ted n a m in g rig h ts fo r sev en ty -tw o m o n ths. T h e thir d lease , ex ec u ted o n F eb rua ry 9, 19 99 , cov ered a fi ft een-y ear t erm for the b uil ding at81 8 E ast O hi o St r eet

. A n ei ght een- y earl eas e fornamin g r i ght s w as sig n e d f o r th e b u ild in g a t 1 2 1 7 W e st C a rso n S tre e t. T h e f if th l eas e w as t w enty - sev en y ear s i n dur at i on and appl i ed t o the b u ild in g a t 5 7 B a te s S tr e e t. A s econd a ppl i cat i on fo r t hi s bui l di ng w as l at er 2 acc ept ed, w hi ch cha nged the name t o s i m pl y“St ai ger . ”

4 I. B e tw e e n M a y1 9 9 8 a n d F e b r u a r y1 9 9 9 , M e lr o s e , a P enns y l vani a corpor at i on, exec ut ed l eas e agr eement s w i t h the ow ners of fi ve P i t t sburgh b uil dings. E ach lease gr anted M el rose t he r i ghtt o name t he bui l di ng and t o cons t ructand di s pl ays i gns on t he bu i l ding w i t h that na m e, as w el l as the ri gh tt o sub l ease o r a ss ig n th e se n a m in g rig h ts . T h e lea se s, w h ich v a rie d in l ength fr om s i x t o t w enty - s even y ear s , di d notl i m i tt he number of t i m es t hatM el r os e coul d change a bui l di ng’ s name. 1 St ar t i ng i n February 1 999, M el r os e fi l ed appl i cat i ons w i t h t he ci t y ’ s zoni ng admi ni s t r at ort o er ectbui l di ng i dent i fica ti o n s i gns on t he fi ve pr oper t i es . T he pr oces s w ent s m oot hl yand t he re ques t ed nam es w er e appr oved. T he bui l di ng at840 E as tO hi o St r eetw as named “R am S t ai g er,” a combi nat i on of t he bui l di ng ow ner ’ s name and a bus i nes s on the pr emi ses. T he nea rbybui l di ng at818 E as tO hi o St r eetw as

2 named “C as keyL i m i t ed, ” af t ert he g ir l fr i end of one of M el r os e’ s offi cer s . A bui l di ng at1217 W es tC ar s on St r eetw as named t he “Thr ee R i ver s B ui l di ng, ” and one at57 B at es St r eet w as nam ed “T he C ole B uil ding, ” aft er t he son o f a M e l roseA ccor di ng t o t he D ece m ber 14, 2001 Z oni ng B oar d of 3 A d ju stm e n t (“ Z o n in g B o a rd ” ) d e c isio n o n th e re n a m in g o f th is b u ild in g , th e re is no e v id e n c e o f a n a p p lica tio n to d e sig n a te th is pr opert y“SSSP

. ” 5 offi cer . T he fifth bui l di ng, at1025- 33 B eave rA venue, w as n a m e d “ S S S P .” 3 In M a rc h 2 0 0 1 , M e lr o se su b m itt e d a p p lica tio n s to r ename eac h of the fi ve bui l di ngs and cha nge t hei r s i gnage. T he C ol e B ui l di ng w as t o be r enamed the “w ehi ren ur s es . com bui l di ng. ” The appl i cat i on i ncl uded a dr aw i ng of one pr opos ed sig n , tw e n ty -f

iv e f e e t w id e a n d tw e n ty fe e t h ig h , w ith “w ehi r enur s es . com” r ep ea ted on fours epar at e l i nes and the w or d “bui l di ng” bel ow t hat o n a fi fth l i ne. T he SSSP and C as k e yLi mi t e d b u i l d i n g s wer e b o t h t o b e r e n a med “pal egal hel p. com. ” The R am St ai ger bui l di ng’ s name w as t o be change d t o “B aruch A t ah H as hem, ” a H ebr ew expr es s i on t hat m eans “B l essed be G od

. ” A si gn age ap p lica tion w as al so s ubm i t t ed fort he Thre e R i ver s B ui l di ng, b uti tdi d nots peci fy the n ew n am e. A t a h ea ri n g b ef o re the Z o n ing B o ard , h o w ev er, t he pr es i dentof M el r os e t es t i fi ed thathe i nt ended t o change the n a m e o f th is b u ild in g to “ w w w .p a leg a lh e lp .co m .” M e lro se d id notpr opos e anychange s t o t he l ocat i on, s i ze, ors hape of the sig n s alre a d y in p lac e o n th e b u ild in g s, b u t in ste a d so u g h t to c h a n g e o n lyth e sig n s’ c o n ten t. T he Pi t t s bur gh Z oni ng C ode ( “Zoni ng C ode”) dis t i ng uis hes betw een thr ee cat ego ri es of sig n s. T hese defini t i on s ar e i m po rt ant as M el rose s ou gh tt o h ave it s si gn s, w i t h t he pr opos ed new names, r emai n cl as s i fi ed as

“ Id e n tific a tio n S ig n s.” “ Id e n tific a tio n S ig n s” a re p e rm itt e d in cert ai n zones t hatpr ohi bi t“A d v e rt i s i n g Si g n s . ” Pi t t s bur gh C ode of O r di nance s § 919. 02. Sect i on 919. 01. C of the Z oni ng C ode, i n eff ectatt he ti m e of M el rose’ s appli cat i on s, provided these defini t i on s: 2

. A dvert i s i ng Si gn m e a n s a sig n th a t d ire c ts att ent i on t o a bus i nes s , com m o d i t y , s ervi ce or e n ter tain m e n t, co n d u c ted , so ld o r o f f e re d : (a) O n lyelsew h ere than u p o n the p rem ises w h ere t he s i gn i s di s pl ay ed; or6 ( b) A s a mi norand i nci dent al act i vi t yup o n the pr emi s es w her e the s i gn i s di s pl ay ed. 3

. B u siness Si gn m e a n s a sig n th a t d ire c ts a tt e n t i on t o a bus i nes s , or gani zat i on, pr ofes s i on or i ndus t r yl ocat ed upon t he pr emi s es w her e the s i gn i s di s pl ay ed; t o the type of pr oduct s s ol d, m anufa ctur ed or as s embl ed; and/ or t o t he s ervi ce orent er t ai nm entoffe r ed on s uch pr emi s es ; exce pt a sig n p e rta in in g to th e p re c e d in g if su c h a c tiv ity i s onl y m i nor and i nci dent al t o t he pr i nci pal us e of th e p re m is e s . 4

. I dent i f

i cat i on Si gn m e a n s a sig n u se d to i dent i fyt he name of the i ndi vi dual oror gani z a t i on occupy i ng t he pr emi s es ; t he pr ofes s i on o f the occupa nt ; t he name of the bui l di ng on w h ic h t he s i gn i s d i s p l a y e d ; o rth e n a me o f th e ma j or ent erpr i s e orpr i nci pal produc tors ervi ce on the p re m is e s . ( J .A

. a t 1 2 0 .) In a d d iti o n to o n lyb e in g p e rm itt e d in c e rta in zo n ing d is tr ict s, “A d v erti sing S ign s” a re su b ject, u n d er § 919. 0 2 , t o mor e r i g o r o u s r e g u l a t i o n s , wi t h r e s p e c tt o l o c a t i on, pl ace m ent , s ize, s hape, and i l l um i nat i on, t han non- advert i s i ng s i gns . T hes e re s t r i ct i ons fur t hert he purpos es of the C ode’ s s i gn re g u latio n s, w h ich in c lu d e a llo w in g a d v e r ti s in g sig n s o n lyin lo c a tio n s th a t “n e ith e r le ss e n th e v isu a l attrib u te s o f th e C ity th ro u g h th e p lac e m e n t o f su c h sig n s, n o r c a u se c o n f u sio n , sa f

e ty pr obl ems orl es s en the abi l i t yt o i dent i fyl ocal bus i nes s es t hroug h v i sual cl utt er. ” P itt sb urgh C od e of O rdi nan ces § 9 1 9 .0 1 .A .1 1

. Fi ndi ng t hatt he pr opos ed s i gns ’ cont entr epr es ent ed ad v erti sing , the Z o n ing A d m inistrator d en ied a ll o f M elrose ’s ap p li ca ti o n s. T h e five b u il d ing s w ere in zon ing d istri cts w h ere t he Z o n ing Code gener al l ypr ohi bi t ed A dver t i s i ng Si gns , but al lo w ed B usi ness Signs and Ident i fi cat i on S i gn s. M el rose appea l ed thes e dec i s i ons t o t he Z oni ng B oar d, w hi ch conduc t ed c o n so lid a te d h e a rin g s. It d e n ied a ll fiv e a p p e a ls in se p a ra te decis i on s.7 T he Zoni ng B oar d found t hat t he pr opos ed s i gns fort he bui l di ngs to b e n am ed “p aleg alhe lp.com ” and “w ehi r enur s es . com bui l di ng” re pr es ent ed “a pl an ors t r at egyof evas i on, ” w hi ch sought t o avoi d t he Z oni ng C ode’ s r es t r i ct i ons on A dver t i s i ng Si gns . ( J

. A

. at70. ) A s forthe bui l di ng t o be nam ed “B aruch A tah A shem , ” w hich M el rose descr i bed as a

“ re lig io u s m e ss a g e ,” th e Z o n in g B o a rd f o u n d th a t th is n a m e d id not fi t w i t hi n t he Z oni ng C ode’ s defi ni t i on for an I dent i fi cat i on S ig n . (Id

. at62. ) T he C i t y o f P it tsbur gh had s entt he Zoni ng B oar d a l ett er advi s i ng t hat t her e w as no l egal bas i s fordeny i ng t hi s appl i cat i on on the gr ounds t hati thad no advert isi ng componentand w as a val i d bui l di ng name. W i t houtaddr es s i ng t he C i t y ’ s pos i t i on, t he Zoni ng B oar d deni ed the appl i cat i on but i nvi t ed M el r os e t o br i ef the pos s i bl e cons t i tut i onal i m pl i cat i ons of thi s par t i cul ardeci s i on. M el r os e di d n o t, how ever , pur s ue th e m a tter f

u rth e r a t th e Z o n in g B o a rd lev e l. A s f o r th e f if th b u ild in g , w h ich M e lro se d id n o t p ro v id e a n e w n a m e f o r in its app l i c a t i o n , t h e Zo n i n g Boa r d f o u n d t h a tth e Zo n i ng A dm i ni s t r at ors houl d nothav e m ade a dec i s i on unt i l t he appl i cat i on w as compl et ed. I tr emanded t o the Z oni ng A dm i ni s t r at o r so thatM el r os e coul d s ubm i tan amended a p p lic a tio n , b u t a n e w a p p lic a tio n w a s n e v e r s u b m itte d

. O ne mont h befor e i t s deci s i ons on M el r os e’ s appea l s , t he Z oni ng B oar d had appr oved s i gns forH ei n z F ie l d, a maj or fo o tball stad ium that is h o m e to the N ati o n al F o o tball L ea g u e’s P it ts b u rg h S tee ler s a n d th e U n iv e rsityo f P itt sb u rg h ’s f

o o tb a ll t eam. T he H

. J

. H ei nz C om pany( “H ei nz”) had ent er ed i nt o a s pons or sh ip ag r eementw i t h t he St eel er s and had s pent$57 m i l l i on t o obt ai n t he nami ng r i ght s t o t he St adi um fora per i od of tw entyy ear s. N ei ghborhood or gani zat i ons chal l enged the p rop o sed sign ag e a t H einz F iel d , arg u ing that the s ign s w ere A d v erti sing S ign s rathe r th an Ide n ti fica ti o n S ign s an d there fo re prohibi t ed. In an i nter i m decis i on i n the case, i ssued on A ug ust 1 5 , 2 0 0 1 , the Z o n in g B o a rd a c k n o w led g e d th a t ce rta in I dent i fi cat i on Si gns , w hi ch m ent i on t he name of a c om panyor produ ct , m ayal so hav e an ad vert i si ng aspect

. A ccordi ng l y , it i den ti fi ed fouratt r i but es t hatan I dent i fi cat i on Si gn w i t h an advert i s i ng componentm us tpos s es s t o avoi d bei ng cat egor i zed as an A dvert i s i ng Si gn. T he four cr i t er i a i ncl uded: fi r s t , one of t he si gn’ s m aj orpurpos es i s t o es t abl i s h a des t i nat i on poi nt8 gener al l yr ecogni zed byt he publ i c ata s peci fi c l ocat i on; s econd, t he es t abl i s hed l ocat i on i s i m por t ant t o a m at er i al s egmentof the p u b lic (f o r e x a m p le , a sp o rts, c u ltu ra l, co m m e rc ial o r a rtistic venue) ; t hi r d, “ther e m us t be evi dence of i nt ended l ongevi t yof t he s i gn adequa t e t o s us t ai n t he des i gnat i on poi ntconce pt ”; and fo u rt h , ei t hert he ow nerof the fa ci l i t yori t s pr i nci pal us er sh o u ld b e in c o n tr o l of

the de sti n y o f th e si g n , rathe r th an a third part y . ( Pl

. ’ s M ot

. for

. Sum m . J

. A pp. at 2 9 5 -96 [Pi t t s bur gh Z oni ng B oar d of A dj us t m ent , I nt er i m D eci s i on i n Z one C as e 85 o f 20 01 (A ug . 15 , 20 01 )]

. ) Th ese cr i t eri a w ere s ub sequ e n tly ci t ed i n t he deci s i ons r ej ect i ng M el r os e’ s appl i cat i ons , al t hough i n a sl i gh t l ydiffer ent form ulat i on . In i t s deci s i on app l y i ng t hese crit eria an d ap p rov in g the H einz F iel d sign ag e, th e B o ard r ecogni zed the adve r t i s i ng compon entof nami ng r i ght s but emphasi zed thatt he St eel er s ’ l engt h yl eas e agr eementforthe st adium and t he l eng thy spon sors hip agreem ent reached w ith H e in z re f

lec ted a “ lo n g -te rm c o m m itm e n t th a t th e S tad iu m w ill be know n t o t he gene r al publ i c as ‘ H ei nz Fi el d. ’ ” ( Supp. A pp. at 10

. ) It con cl ud ed that t he nam i ng w as no t a “subte rf u g e to ci r cumventt he C ode’ s l i m i t at i ons on advert i s i ng” but i ns t ead a l egi t i m at e att em ptt o name t he s t adi um , al bei tw i t h a natur al cons equenc e of a dver t i s i ng and m ark et i ng benef i t s forH ei nz. (I d. ) In it s su b seq u en t dec isi o n s rejecting M elro se’s appl i cat i ons , t he Zoni ng B oar d offe r ed a s l i ght l ydi ffe r ent art i cul at i on of t he att r i but es t hat i t w oul d cons i der nece s s aryfor “a purpor t ed ‘ I dent i fi cat i on Si gn’

. . . t o avoi d bei ng cat egor i zed a s a n A d v e rtisin g S ig n .” (J .A . at 5 6 .) T h e se in c lu d e d th a t: O ne of i t s m aj orpurpos es o f, orr es ul tof, an id e n tific a tio n sig n m u st be to e sta b lish a sp e c if ic des t i nat i on poi ntt hat w i l l be gener al l yr ecogni zed byt he p u bl i c as bei ng ata s etgeogr aphi cal l oca ti on. T her e mustbe evi dence of i nt ended l ongevi t yof the s i gn adequa t e t o s us t ai n the des i g n at ed poi ntconce pt

. I tcannotbe as tra n sito rya s a c o m m e rc ial b ill b o a rd

. H o w e v e r, it need notbe i m m une fr om unexpec t ed, unfor es een o r u n w e lco m e c irc u m sta n c e s tha t m ig h t re su lt i n a t erm i nat i on. E i t her t he ow nerof the fa ci l i t yor a pri nci pal l ong t erm s pace us ert her eof s houl d be9 i n co n tr o l of the des t i nyof anys uch s i gn, r ather than h av ing co n tr o l tu rne d o v er to s o m e third part y , t o as s ure c ont i nui ng compl i ance w i t h the n e c e s s a ry a ttr ib u te s . I d. I n appl y i ng t hes e cr i t er i a t o M el r os e’ s appl i cat i ons , t he B o a rd e x p re ss e d p a rticu lar c o n c e rn w ith th e lo n g e v ity r equi r ementand w i t h the tr ans ferof bui l di ng iden t i fi cat i on r i ght s , w hi ch i tnot ed mayl ead to fr equentchange s for comm er ci al purpos es . Fr equent change s i n t he cont entof s i gns and a la ck of l ongevi t yw er e dee m ed i ncons i s t entw i t h the p u rp o se s o f

b u ild in g Id e n tific a tio n S ig n s

– d ire c tin g th e p u b lic tow ard s a sp ec ifi c g eo g rap h ical l o ca ti o n . T h e Z o n ing B o ard di s t i ngui s hed M el r os e’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de evi d en ce of an i nt ent i on t o keep t he bui l di ng names fora s ubs t ant i al per i od of ti m e f rom the tw en ty -y ea r ag ree m en t entere d int o b ythe S teelers an d H einz

. Italso n o ted in it s d e c is ion s tha t M elrose ’s re p re se n tativ e h a d tes tifie d th a t th e p u rp o se o f th e sig n s w a s to di r ec t indi vi dual s t o t he w ebs i t e bus i nes s i n or dert o m ake a p ro f it. M el r os e fi l ed t h is act i on i n the W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng t hat D efe ndant s – t he C i t yof Pi t t s bur gh, the P ittsbu rgh Z o n ing B o ard , an d the three ind ividu al m em b ers o f th e Z o n in g B o a rd – v io late d its F ir s t a n d F o u rte e n th A m end m ent r i gh t s bya rbitrar i l yden y i ng i t s si gn app l i cat i on s. M el r os e as s ert ed tw o cl ai m s pur s uant t o Sect i on 1983: fi r s t , t hat D efe ndants d ep r i ved i tof i t s Fi r s tA m endmentfr ee s peec h ri gh t s w hen t heyi m perm i ssi blyl i m i t ed the con t ent of it s si gn s; a n d se c o n d , tha t D e f

e n d a n ts d e p riv e d it o f its F o u rte e n th A m endmentequal pr ot ect i on r i ght s bytr eat i ng s i mi l a r l ys i tu at ed e n tit ies m o re f

a v o ra b ly

. M e lro se a lso b ro u g h t a th ird c la im p u rsu a n t to th e e q u a l p ro tec tio n c lau se o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C ons t i tut i on. T he ca s e w as r efe r r ed t o a M agi s t r at e J udge forpr etr i al pr ocee di ngs . T he M agi s t r at e J u d g e i s s ued a Repor tand R ec o m m en d ati o n reg ard ing D ef en d an ts’ m o tio n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t an d M e lro se ’s m o tio n f o r pa rtial su m m a ryju d g m e n t, recom m end i ng t hat the D i stri ctC ou rt grantD efen dan t s’ s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on and denyM el r os e’ s m ot i on. T he10 M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e e v a l u a t e d M e l r o s e ’ s F i r s tAme n d me n tc l a i ms i n l i ghtof C e n tra l H

u d so n G a s & E le c tr ic C o rp . v. P u b lic C om m issi on of N

ew Y ork , 4 4 7 U .S . 5 5 7 (1 9 8 0 ), w h ich se ts f o rth a fr ame w or k foras s es s i ng r es t r i ct i ons on comm er ci al s peec h. U n d er this fo u r-pa rtan aly sis, the c o u rt

m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e e x p re ss io n is p rotec ted b y the Fi r s tA m endment

. For comm er ci al s peec h t o come w i t hi n thatpr ovi s i on, i tatl eas t m us t conce r n l aw ful act i vi t yand notbe mi s l e a d i n g . Nex t , we a s k whe t h e rt h e a s s e r t ed g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e st is s u b sta n tial. I f b o th i nq uir i es y i el d p osi t i ve a n sw ers , w e m ust d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re g u latio n d ire c tly advanc es t he governm ent al i nt er es tas s ert ed, and w h ethe r it is no t m o re e x tens ive th an is ne ce ssary to s e rv e th a t in te re s t. C entr alH

uds on , 447 U

. S. at566. T he M agi s t r at e J udge found t he p roposed speech to be m i sl eading, bu tno nethel ess p ro c e e d e d to e x a m in e th e re m a in in g f a c to rs. T h e M a g istra te Ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c ityh a d a su b s ta n tial in ter e st in r es t r i ct i ng t he pl ace m ent of advert i s i ng s i gns , t hat t he deni al of M el r os e’ s s i gns s ubs t ant i al l yadvanc ed thi s i nt er es t , and thatt he regul at i on w as not overl yres t ri ct i ve. T he M agis t rat e Judg e al so r ej ect ed M el r os e’ s equal p r o t e c t i o n c l ai m s , fi ndi ng t hats i nce the reg u lat ion s p asse d m u ster un d er C entr alH uds on ’s comm er ci al speech t est , t heynecessari l ysurvi ved equ al prot ect i on analy si s. M el r os e fi l ed obj ect i on s a n dth e Di s t r i ctC our tconduct ed a de novo r evi ew of t he re cor d. T he D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the R epo rt and R ecom m end at i on i n part and rej ect ed i t i n p a rt, u lti m a telyg ra n tin g D e f

e n d a n ts’ m o tio n f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T he C our t , appl y i ng C entr alH uds on , r e jec ted th e M a g istra te Ju d g e’s f

ind ing that th e p rop o sed b u il d ing n am es w ere m i s l eadi ng. N onethel es s , i tul t i m at el yadopt ed the R ep or tand R ecomm endat i on’ s concl us i on t hatthe r egul at i ons cons t i tut ed v a lid re stric tio n s o n c o m m e rc ial s p e e c h a n d d id n o t v io late M el r os e’ s Fi r s tA m endm entr i ght s . T he C our thel d t hatthe a p p l i c a t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e b u i l d i n g M e l r o s e i n t e n d e d t o n a me “B aruch A t a h H a shem ” w as not pr op erl ybefo re i tbecau se M e lro se h a d f

a iled to re a p p ly a n d b rie f th e p o ss ib le11 cons t i tut i onal cl ai m r el at ed t o t hatappl i cat i on. M el r os e does n o t r a i s e t h i s i s s u e o n a p p e a l

. Th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t r ej ect ed M el r os e’ s ar gum entt hat t he t erm “B ui l di ng I dent i fi cat i on Si gn” i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l yv a g u e , e i t h e ro n i t s f a c e o ra s appl i ed. Fi na l l y , t h e Cou r t r e

j e c t e d t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i o n s t o t he R ep o rtan d R ec o m m en d ati o n an d fo u n d that, ev en if su m m ary jud g m en t w as n o t ap p rop ri ate, th e ind ividu al D ef en d an ts w ere e n title d to im m u n ity. M e lr o s e f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. II. T h e D istri ct C o u rtex erc ised juri sd ict ion o v er M elrose ’s cl ai m s under28 U

. S. C

. § 1331. W e have appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. W e exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over a d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ru lin g . B us
. E dge G r oup, I nc. v. C ham

pi on Mor t

gage C o. , I

nc. , 519 F. 3d 150, 153 n. 5 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e a p p lyth e sa m e sta n d a rd a s th e D istric t C o u rt:

“ S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ri a te o n lyw h e re , d ra w in g a ll re a so n a b le in f

e re n c e s in f

a v o r o f th e n o n m o v in g p a rty , th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n y m a ter ial fa c t a n d

. . . th e m o v in g p a rty is ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” R u e h l v
. V i a c o m, I nc. , 500 F. 3d 375, 380 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I n a ca s e s uch as thi s , w hi ch i nvol v e s Fi r s tAm e n dm enti s s ues , an appe l l at e courtm us t“make an i ndepende ntexami nat i on of t he w hol e r ecor d. ” B os e C or p. v. C ons um ers U

ni on of U

. S. , I nc. , 466 U

. S. 4 8 5 , 4 99 ( 1984) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). III . A s M el r os e cl ar i fi ed at o ral a r gum ent , i t s chal l enge focus es on t he Zoni ng B oard’ s m ethod of appl y i ng t he s i gn or di nance s and det erm i ni ng w hethera purpor t ed I dent i fi cat i on Si gn, w hi ch has an adve r t i s i ng as pect , can s t i l l p rop er l ybe classified as a n Ide n ti fica ti o n S ign

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ec isi o n an aly sed M elrose ’s c lai m s b y ap p ly ing the f ram ew o rk art i cul at ed i n C entr alH uds on . W hi l e w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s concl us i on – t hatthe Zoni ng B oar d’ s d eci s i ons r ej ect i ng M el r os e’ s s i gn appl i cat i ons di d notvi ol at e M el r os e’ s Fi r s tand Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght s – w e hol d t hatt he pr oper fr amew or k foreval uat i ng thes e cl ai m s i s gov ern ed byourCe n tr a lHudson , w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt a p p lied in 4 evaluat i ng M el rose’ s cl ai m s, pr o v ide s t he fr amew or k for e v a lu a tin g re s tr ictio n s o n c o m m e rc ial s p e e c h , p a rticu lar ly r es t r i ct i ons t hat di s t i ngui s h betw een c om m er ci al and noncomm er ci al s peec h bas ed on cont ent

. T h at is notthe s i tuat i on h e r e . A s w e d i s c u s s m o r e f u l l y i nfr a , w e find thatt he Zoni ng B oar d ’s det erm i nat i on w as notcont ent

- bas ed, buti ns t ead cons t i tut ed a c ont ext

- s ens i t i ve ana l y s i s t hat s ought t o det erm i ne w hethert her e w as a s i gni fi cant r el at i ons hi p betw een the cont ent o f th e sig n s a n d th e ir sp e c if ic lo c a tio n , s u c h th a t th e y c o u ld tru ly be d eem ed Iden t i fi cat i on S i gn s. 12 deci s i on i n R a

p p a v . N e w C a stle C o u n ty , 1 8 F

. 3 d 1 0 4 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ). 4 A . M e lro se ’s F irs t A m e n d m e n t C la im I n R appa , w e art i cul ated a fr amew or k fordet erm i ni ng w h e th e r a sta tu te is c o n ten t-b a se d o r c o n ten t-n e u tra l. T h is det erm i nat i on i s t he fi r s ts t ep i n a F i r s t A m endmentanal y s i s , as t he ans w erdi ct at es t he s t andar d t hat w e appl yi n r evi ew i ng the o rd in a n c e a t is s u e . R appa , 18 F. 3 d at 1053 ( quot i ng P ol i ce D ep’ tof C hi

. v. Mos l ey , 4 0 8 U .S . 9 2 , 9 9 (1 9 7 2 )); s ee al s o R i el v. C i t y of Brad

f ord , 4 8 5 F

. 3d 736, 743 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. I f the s t atut e i s co nt ent

- bas ed, t he governm entm us t“s how t hatt he r egul at i on i s nece s s aryt o s erve a c om pel l i ng sta t e i nt er es tand t hati ti s narr ow l ydr aw n t o achi eve thatend. ” R appa , 18 F. 3d at 1053 ( quot i ng Boos v
. B arry , 4 8 5 U

. S

. 3 1 2 , 3 2 1 (19 8 8 )) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). If in ste a d th e sta tu te is found t o be cont ent

- neutr al i n thati t“mer el yr es t r i ct s the t ot al quant it y o f sp eec h byr egul at i ng t he t i m e, the pl ace orthe m anner i n w hi ch one can s peak, a very di ffe r ent t est ap p li es
. ” I d. (c itatio n s o m it te d ). U n d e r th is te st, th e g o v e rn m e n t is perm i t t ed t o “i m pos e r eas onabl e r es t r i ct i ons on t he t i m e, pl ace , o r m an n er o f p rotec ted s p ee ch , p rov ided [1 ] th e re str ict ion s ‘are j us t i f i e d wi t h o u tr e f

e r e n c e t o t h e c o n t e n to f t h e r e g u l at ed s peec h, [2] t hatt hey ar e narr ow l yt ai l or ed t o s erve a s i gni fi cant g o v e rn m e n tal i n ter e st, a n d [ 3 ] th a t th e ylea v e o p e n a m p le a lte rna ti v e c h an n els fo r co m m u n icati o n o f th e inf o rm ati o n . ’” W ard v. Ro ck A ga i nstR acis m , 491 U

. S

. 7 8 1 , 791 ( 1989) ( quot i ng Cl a rk

v
. Cm t y
. f o rCr e a t i v e Non

- Vi o l e nce , 46 8 U. S. 2 8 8 , 2 9 3 (1 9 8 4 )) (f

u rt h e r c ita tio n o m itte d ).13 M e lro se c o n ten d s th a t th e Z o n in g C o d e w a s a p p lied to its appl i cat i ons i n a cont ent

- bas ed manner and thatno s how i ng w as m ade of a compel l i ng s t at e i nt er es t

. I n r es pons e, t he C i t yar gues th a t th e sig n o rd in a n c e w a s a p p li e d in a p e rm iss ib le c o n ten tneutr al m anner . I n R i el , a cas e al s o i nvol vi ng Fi r s tA m endment chal l enges t o m uni ci pal s i gn or di nan ce s, w e obs erved that “det er m i ni ng w h e t h e ra s t at ut e i s cont ent

- bas ed or cont ent

- neutr al has not been ent i r el y s t r ai ght forw ar d. ” 485 F

. 3d a t 7 4 4

. R iel anal y zed a nd appl i ed the fr amew or k t hatw e s et for th i n R appa f

o r m a k in g th is d e te rm in a tio n . R appa l i kew i s e i nvol ved a Fi r s tA m endm entchal l enge t o out door s i gn or di nance s . I n s eeki ng t o det erm i ne “the curr ent s t a t e o f F i r s tAm e n d me n tl a w p e r t a i n i n g t o o u t d o o rs i g n s , ” we d isc u ss e d a t len g th th e S u p re m e C o u r t’ s sp lin ter e d d e c isio n in Metr om edi a, I

nc. v. C i t y of San D i ego , 4 5 3 U .S

. 4 9 0 (19 8 1 ), w hich dealt w i t h a S an D i ego ordi nan ce r egardi n g b il l bo ards. R appa , 18 F. 3d at1047. W e found that a cl eargoverni ng s t andar d coul d notbe der i ved fr om the pl ur al i tya nd concurr ence i n Me tro m e d ia and concl uded that , gi ven s i gni fi cantdi ffe r ence s b e tw e e n th e o rd in a n c e s a t is su e in b o th c a se s, th e re su lt i n Metr om edi a di d notcontr ol our deci s i on i n R appa. Id

. at1061. I ns t ea d , w e art i cul at ed and then appl i ed a “ cont ext

- s ens i t i ve” anal y s i s fordet erm i ni ng w hethera r es t r i ct i on on s p ee ch, i ncl udi ng a s i gn or di nance , i s cont ent

- neutr al orcont ent

- bas ed. W e expl ai ned i n R appa t hat“[s ] om e s i gns ar e more i m por t ant t han other s” becau se t h e ya r e mor e r e l a t e d t o th e p a r t i c u l a rl o cat i on th a n a re o th e r sig n s. A llo w in g su c h “ c o n tex ts ens i t i ve” s i gns w hi l e banni ng other s i s not dis cri m i nati ng i n fav or of the co ntentof these s i gns ; rather , i ti s acc om m odat i ng the s peci al n a tu r e o f

s u c h s i g n s s o t h a tt h e me s s a g e s t hey co n tai n h ave a n equal chanc e t o be comm uni cat ed. Id

. at1064. A s an exa m pl e, w e not ed that“[a ] s i gn i dent i fy i ng a comm er ci al es t abl i s hm enti s m or e im p o rt anton i t s pr emi s es t han i s a s i gn advert i s i ng an unr el at ed pr oduct

. ” I d. D et erm i ni ng w hethera s i gn i s r el at ed t o the l ocat i on w here iti s pl ace d i nevi t abl ydemands a cons i der at i on of theI n R appa , w e des cr i bed the Metr om edi a co n cu rren ce ’s 5 t es t a s “ e s s e n t i a l l ya mor e s t r i n g e n tv e r s i o n o f th e t i me , p l ace , and mannert es t

. ” 18 F. 3d at1059 n. 22. A ccor di ngl y , w e nee d nots epar at el yapp ly tha tt es ti n s i tuat i ons w her e the R appa a n a lysis is a p p ro p ri a te

. See Ri el , 485 F. 3d at 751 ( appl y i ng the “gene r al te s tfort i m e, pl ace , and mannerr es t r i ct i ons , ” r ather t han R appa , w hen “an exempt i on i s not even a r guabl ybas ed on th e c o n te n t o f

th e s p e e c h ” ). 14 sig n ’s c o n ten t. B u t th is c o n sid e ra tio n d o e s n o t b y it se lf cons t i tut e a l ack of neutr al i t y as t o s peci fi c cont ent

. Sum m i ng up ouranal y s i s , w e hel d i n R appa th a t: [W ] hen ther e i s a s i gni fi cant r el at i ons hi p betw een th e c o n ten t o f

p a rticu lar sp e e c h a n d a sp e c if ic l o c a t i o n o ri t s u s e , t h e s t a t e c a n e x e mp tf r o m a gener al ban s peec h havi ng t hat cont ent s o l ong as t he s t at e di d notm ake the di s t i nct i on i n an att empt to cens orcert ai n vi ew poi nt s ort o contr ol w hat i ssues ar e app ropri at e for pu bli c deb at e and so l on g as t he ex cepti on al so su rvi ves t he tes t pr opos ed byt he Metrom ed ia concurr ence : i

. e. , the sta te m u st sh o w th a t th e e x c e p tio n is s u b sta n tially rel at ed to adv ancing an i m po rt ant s t at e i nterest th a t is a t l e a st a s im p o rta n t as th e in ter e sts advan ced byt he under l y i ng r egul at i on, thatt he exce pt i on i s no br oader than nece s s ary t o advanc e th e sp e c ial g o a l, an d th a t th e e x c e p tio n is narr ow l ydr aw n s o as t o i m pi nge as l i t tl e as p o s s ib le o n th e o v e ra ll g o a l. Id

. a t 1 0 6 5 ( i n t e r n a l f

o o t n o t e s o m i t t e d )

. W e o u t l i n e d t w o w a ys 5 th ro u g h w h ich th e re q u ire m e n t th a t a s ig n b e sig n if ica n tly r el at ed t o a s peci fi c l ocat i on m i ght b e sati sfi ed. Fi r s t , a s i gn coul d be part i cu larl yi m por t antt o t r avel er s on a nea rbyr oad, su c h a s a d ire c tio n a l sig n . S e c o n d , itc o u ld b e sh o w n “ th a t a s i gn bett er convey s i t s i nform at i on i n i t s part i cul arl ocat i on than i tcoul d anyw her e else – forexampl e, an addr es s s i gn. ” I d. H ence , as w e s um m ar i zed i n R i el , the cor e of R appa ’ s hol di ng i s that exce pt i ons s uch as t hos e ati s s ue i n thi s cas e do not cons t i tute cont ent

- bas ed r es t r i ct i ons t hatw e ana l y ze us i ng a15 s t r i cts crut i nyfr amew or k. I ns t ead, w e empl oy“a mor e fl exi bl e, cont ext

- s peci fi c appr oach. ” R i el , 485 F. 3d at746. B efor e appl y i ng the R appa fr amew or k t o the ordi nance i n t hi s cas e, w e fi r s tfr ame t he i s s ue bef or e us . T he Pi t t s bur gh Z oni ng C ode bans w hati tdefi nes as A dver t isi n g Si gns fr om cert ai n ar eas of the ci ty , i ncl udi ng thos e i n w hi ch t he bui l di ngs ati s s ue i n t hi s cas e ar e l ocat ed. H o w ev er , t he Zoni ng C ode perm i t s si gn s cl assi fi ed as Identi fi cat i on S i gn s w i t hin tho se s am e zoni ng di s t r i ct s . O r di nance s t hatexempti dent i fi cat i on sig n s f ro m a g e n e ra l b a n o n sig n s re p re se n t “ a c las sic appl i cat i on of R appa ’ s cont ext

- s peci fi c rul e. ” Id

. at750. Such s i gns cl ear l ybet t erconveyt hei ri nform at i on at t he l ocat i on they are i ntended t o i den t i fy , renderi ng them si m i l ar t o ad dress si gn s. I d. T h e y a lso p ro m o te p u b lic o rd e r b yp ro v id in g th e p u b lic w ith in f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g s p e c if ic b u ild in g s . Id

. a t 7 5 1

. T h e m o re c o m p le x is su e in th is c a se , h o w e v e r, is present ed b yt he fa ctt hat M el rose s eeks t o clas sifyi t s si gn s, w hi ch admi t t edl yposses s an adve r t i s i ng component , as Id e n ti f ic a tio n S ig n s. It c laim s th a t th e sig n s d o n o t m e re ly advert i s e a w eb addr es s, b u t i n fac tname t he bui l di ngs t hey adorn. T h e Z o ni ng C ode, bynotal l ow i ng A dver t i s i ng Si gns w i t hi n t he r el evantzoni ng di s t r i ct s , cr eat es a gene r al ban on a d v e rtisin g s p e e c h in th o se a re a s. H o w e v e r, th e f o u r c riter ia t hatt he Zoni ng B oar d has ar t i cul at ed and appl i ed i n t he H ei nz F ield c a se a n d in M e lro se ’s c a se s a llo w f o r a n e x c e p tio n to th is gener al ban w h en s uch adve r t i s i ng i s convey ed thr ough a s i gn t hat, al t ho ug h ith a s advert i si ng charact eri st i cs, rem ai ns a genui ne I dent i fi cat i on Si gn. A s t he Zoni ng B oar d decl ar ed i n i t s deci s i on appr ovi ng t he H ei nz Fi el d s i gns , “[w ] her e a s i gn h as component s of advert i s i ng and i d en ti fi cat i on, w e mustdet erm i ne w hethert he p u rpo rt ed b u il d ing iden ti fica ti o n is ge n u ine o r m ere ly an ef fo rt t o ut i l i ze the l ocat i on as an adve r t i s i ng vehi cl e. ” ( Supp. A pp. at 11. ) T h e fo u rcr i t er i a art i cul at ed bythe Zoni ng B oar d for m aki ng t hi s det erm i nat i on pr ovi de a fr amew or k foreval uat i ng w hethera “s i gni fi cant r el at i ons hi p” exi s t s betw een the cont ent of s uch si gns and the s peci fi c l ocat i on i n w hi ch theyar e pl ace d. See Rappa , 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 6 6 . T h e re is n o in d ica tio n th a t th e C ity s ough t to “ cens orcert ai n vi ew poi nt s ” w hen i tar t i cul at ed andT o t he ext entt hatM el r os e cont ends thatthi s exce pt i on 6 i s s peci fi cal l ydi r ect ed atperm i t t i ng t he phenom enon of na m i ng rig h ts a t larg e f

a c ili ties , w e a lso re c o g n iz e a n im p o rta n t sta te in ter e st in f

a c ili tatin g su c h n a m in g a g re e m e n ts. A s th e C ity s t at ed at or al ar gum ent , both t he C i ty and t he publ i c atla r ge have a n i m por t ant i nt er es t i n enabl i ng t he cons t ruct i on of s uch fac i l i t i es , w hi ch bene fi tfr om the fi nanci al s uppor tthatder i ves f ro m s p o n s o rs h ip a g re e m e n ts

.

16 a p p lie d th e s e c ri te ri a . Id

. at1065. W e ther efor e conc l ude that th e c ity ’s f

o u r crite ria sa tisf

yth e f irst p a rt o f

th e tes t w e se t f

o rth i n R appa . A ccor di ngl y , w e proc eed t o t he s econd port i on of the R appa fr amew or k. H er e, w e cons i derw hethert he Z o n ing B oar d’ s exce pt i on – forcert ai n I dent i fi cat i on Si gns t hathave a n a d v e rtisin g c o m p o n e n t, bu t th a t b ysa tisf y in g th e f

o u r c riter ia i ndi cat e thatt heyar e s t i l l a genui ne I denti fica ti on Si gn – s u r v i v e s t h e t e s ts e tf o r t h i n the Metr om edi a concurr ence . U n d e r th is te st w e f

irst e x a m in e w h e th e r “ th e e x c e p tio n is s ubs t ant i al l yr el at ed t o advanc i ng an i m por t ants t at e i nt er es tt hat i s atl eas t as im por t antas t he i nt er es t s advanc ed byt he under l y i ng r egul at i on. ” I d. T he C i t y clea rl yhas an i m por t ant in ter e st i n a llo w in g th e p u b lic to id e n tify a p a rticu lar n a m e w ith a geogr aphi c l ocat i on, enabl i ng the publ i c t o r ecogni ze a nd fi nd t hes e l ocat i ons . A s i gn l ocat ed atthe s t ruct u re that i tnames 6

“ b e tter c o n v e y s its in f

o rm a tio n in th a t lo c a tio n th a n it co u ld anyw her e el s e. ” R i el , 485 F. 3d at 750. T he fourcr i t er i a s erve this i n terest bycre ati n g a n arro w ex ce p ti o n that all o w s fo r a sm al l nu m ber of Identi fi cat i on S i gn s, w hich al so po sses s advert i s i ng as pect s , w hen ther e ar e fa ct s t hat ind icate thatt he tru e in ten t b e h in d th e sig n is to id e n tify th e p re m ise s w h e re it i s loca ted a n d that the n am e d e p ic ted w il l r em ain c o n stan t fo r a s i gni fi cantper i od of t i m e. T he s i gns at i s s ue i n t hi s cas e, w hi ch al s o pos s es s advert i s i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i cs , cr eat e a t ens i on betw een t he C i t y ’ s aes t het i c interes ti n l i m i t i ng the pr ol i fer at i on of A d v e rtisin g S ig n s, w h ich th e sig n re g u latio n s a d v a n c e , an d its in te re s t in a llo w in g Id e n tif ic a tio n S ig n s . S e e Me tro m e d ia , 453 U

. S

. at50 7-08 (i den t i fy i ng t he “ap pearance o f t he city ” as a “s ubs t ant i al governm entgoal [] ”)

. T he Zoni ng B oar d’ s four cr i t er i a s et for t h a r eas oned fr amew or k forr es ol vi ng t hi s t ens i on17 and al l ow for a n arr ow exce pt i on t o t he gene r al ban on a d v e rtisin g w h e n a d v e rtis in g is a n a sp e c t o f a sig n th a t is g en u inelyinten d ed to b e an Ide n ti fica ti o n S ign an d there fo re s erves i m por t ants t at e i nt er es t s , i ncl udi ng “publ i c or der , ” R i el , 4 8 5 F

. 3d at751, and “tr aff i c s afe t y , ” Me tro m e d ia , 4 5 3 U. S. at 5 0 7 -0 8

. W e r ecogni ze t h a t n a mi n g r i g h t s r e pr es ent a uni que p h e n o m e n o n . A n e n tity t h a t p u rc h a se s s u c h rig h ts s e e k s to benef i tnots i m pl yfr om having si gns atthe l ocat i on that a d v e rtise its n a m e , b u t a lso f ro m h a v in g th e p u b lic a ss o c iate its name w i t h t he venue

. A s one comm ent at orhas obs erved: Per h ap s t he s i ngl e mosti m por t antfac t ori n a nami ng r i ght s agr eementi s t he under s t andi ng t hat th e c o rp o ra te s p o n so r’s n a m e w ill b e u se d in as s oci at i on w i th t he venue atal l t i m es byvenue m anage m entand t enant s. T hi s us e fa ci l i t at es m e d ia u sa g e in a ll co m m u n ica tio n s a n d lea d s to r ecogni t i on w i thi n the l ocal as w el l as t he nat i onal m e d ia. C o m p a re d w ith th e tra d iti o n a l m e d ia adver t i s i ng, w her e t he b r o adca s t of a t hirt y -s econ d pri m e t i m e t el evis i on spot can cost $1- $2 m i l l i on, i tbecome s appar entw hynami ng r i ght s ar e ef

fi ci entm arket i ng. C h ri s tia n M a x im illia n V o ig t, “W hat ’s R eal l

y i n the Package of a N am i ng R ight

s D eal ?” Ser vi ce M

ark Right

s and the N

am i ng R ig h t s o f P r o f e s s i o n a l S

p o r ts S ta d i u ms , 1 1 J

. I n t e l l

. Pr o p . L. 327, 330 ( 2004) ( i nt ernal footnot es om i tt ed)

. H en ce the pur chas e of nami ng r i ght s can pr ove l ucr at i ve fora s pons orfor r eas ons bey ond w hetherornotthe s pons ori s abl e t o have s i gns w i t h i t s nam e er ect ed on the fa ci l i t y ’ s ext er i or . T he ext er i or s i gns on s uch fa ci l i t i es do not , byt hemsel ves , “name” the venue , buti ns t ead a i d t he publ i c i n r ecogni zi ng a s peci fi c des t i nat i on. A s s uch, t hey“pr om ot e publ i c or derbypr ovi di ng i nform at i on aboutt he bui l di ng[]

. ” R i el , 4 8 5 F .3 d a t 7 5 1

. W e turn t o th e second and thir d p ort i on s of t he tes t del i neat ed i n t he Metr om edi a con cu rre nce. W e fi nd t hatt he Z oni ng B oar d’ s cr i t er i a cr eat e an “exc ept i on [that ] i s no br oader t han nec es s ary ” to al l ow forgenui ne I dent i fi cat i on Si gns that p o s s e s s a n a d v e r t i s i n g a s p e c t a n d t h a tth e ya r e “ n a r r o wl yd r a wn18 s o as t o i m pi nge as l i t t l e as pos s i bl e on the over al l goal ” of p re v e n tin g th e p ro life ra tio n o f a d v e rtisin g sig n s i n c e rta in lo c a le s . R appa , 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 6 5 . T h e f o u r c riter ia n a rro w ly t ai l ort hi s exce pt ion b yr equi r i ng appl i cant s t o s how t hats uch s i gns ar e i nt ended t o es t abl i s h a gene r a l l yr e c o g n i zed de s t i nat i on poi ntof i nt er es tt o a s i gni fi cants egmentof the publ i c; thatthey ar e i nt ended t o r emai n i n pl ace fora s i gni fi cant per i od of t i m e, w hi ch w i l l bot h es t abl i s h and sus t ai n t he publ i c’ s r ecogni t i on of t he des t i nat i on poi nt ; and t hat t he ow ner or pr i nci pal us erof the p re m ise s, w h o is lik e lyto h a v e a v e ste d in ter e st in th e sta b ili ty o f its id e n tif

ic a tio n , p o s s e s s e s c o n tr o l o v e r t h e s ig n s . T hes e cr i t er i a s erve t o p reve nta pr ol i fer at i on of A d v e rtisin g S ig n s w ith ra p id lyc h a n g in g c o n ten t th a t p u rp o rt to be I dent i fi cat i on Si gns . A s s uch t hey ar e “na r r ow l ydr aw n s o as to im p ing e a s li tt le as po ssible o n the o v era ll g o al” o f th e C ity ’s s ig n re g u la tio n s . Id

. at1065. T he l ongevi t ycr i t er i a and the r equi r ementthat t he ow nerorpr i nci pal us erof a bui l di ng p o ss e ss e s c o n tro l o v e r th e sig n re in f o rc e th e C ity ’s in ter e st in a ll o w in g th e p u b lic to a ss o c iate a g iv e n n a m e w ith a sp e c if ic l o c a t i o n a n d n a r r o w l y t a i l o r t h e s c o p e o f t h i s e x c e p t i o n . C l e a r l y, i t behooves t he ow ner or pr i nci pal us er of a bui l di ng, p a rticu lar lyo n e w h o o p e ra tes a b u sin e ss o n th e p re m is e , to ens ur e t hat s i gns on t he bui l di ng r emai n cons i s t entand thatt hey al l ow t he publ i c t o eas i l yas cert ai n and r emem beri t s l ocat ion. I n Me tro m e d ia , the S u p re m e C o u rtd ee m ed itrea so n ab le fo r a c ity to b e liev e th a t “ o f f site a d v e rtisin g , w ith it s p e rio d ica lly changi ng cont ent , pr es ent s a m or e acut e pr obl em than d o es o n site a d v e rtisin g .” 4 5 3 U .S . at 5 1 1 (c itatio n o m itt e d ). Im p licit in this st atem en t i s the assu m p ti o n that o n sit e a d v erti sing , fo r a bus i nes s att he l ocat i on, w i l l change l es s fr equent l ythan the con t ents of a c om m erci al bil l bo ard atth e sa m e prem i ses. C e rta in lya c o m m e rc ial ten a n t is n o t li k e lyto m o v e a s f re q u e n tly as a bi l l boar d m i ghtbe cha nged fo r new advert i s i ng. A n a l o g o u s l y , we f

i n d t h a t t h e Zo n i n g Boa r d ’ s c o n c e r n wi t h a bui l di ng’ s ow nerorpr i m aryt enanthavi ng contr ol overthe c o n ten t o f sig n s, in c o n

ju n c tio n w ith th e o th e r c riter ia, s e rv e s to en su re tha t th e e x ce p ti o n rem ains n arro w . A n o w n er o r prim ary t enantw oul d l i kel y have m or e i nves t ed i n ens ur i ng t hatt he s i gns th a t id e n tify th e p re m ise re m a in sta b le th a n w o u ld a p a rtyw ith n o interest i n the p rem ises b ey o n d it s co n tr o l o f th e sig n s. In19 s um m ary , w e conc l ude that t he Z oni ng B oar d’ s cons i der at i on of t he content of si gn s w i t h an adv ert i si ng aspect , for the p urpose of det erm i ni n g w hethert heys at i s fyt hes e cr i t er i a and c an properl ybe clas si fi ed as Iden tificati on S i gn s, con st i tutes a

“ c o n te x t- s e n s itiv e ” a n a lysis a n d is n o t im p ro p e r. M e l r o s e ’ s s i g n s c l e a r l yf a i l t o s a t i s f

yth e s e c r i t e r i a . No show i ng has been m ade of int end ed longe vity . In fact , M el rose a ss e rte d its rig h t to c h a n g e th e c o n ten t o f its sig n s a s f

re q u e n tly a s i t wi s h e d

. Nor i s M e l r o s e , whi c h c o n t r o l s t h e s i gns , t he o w n e ro f

t h e b u i l d i n g s o rt h e i rp r i m a r y t e n a n t

. F i n a l l y, M e lr o se ’s c o n ten tio n th a t it s p ro p o se d b u ild in g n a m e s w o u ld se rv e th e p u b lic in ter e st b yid e n tify in g sp e c if ic g e o g ra p h ic l ocat i ons , forpurpos es in cludi ng the ca l l i ng of emer gency as s i s t ance , i s underm i ned by t he fac t t hat i t s ought t o name t hr ee di s t i nctbui l di ngs “pal egal hel p. com. ” A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd t hat M e lr o s e f

a ile d b ya w id e m a rg in to s a tis f yth e f o u r c ri te ri a . W e a l so rej ectM el rose’ s content i on t hat the cri t eria cr eat ed an i m perm issi b lys ubj ect i ve orvague s t andar d. T he Supr eme C our thas hel d that “[ a] g overnm entr egul at i on t hat all o w s arbi t r ary appl i cat i on i s i nher ent l y i ncons i s t ent w i t h a val i d t i m e, pl ace , and mannerr egul at i on beca us e s uch di s cr et i on has t he pot ent i al forbecomi ng a means of s uppr es s i ng a part i cul ar p oi ntof vi ew . ” Forsyth C ou nty, G a. v. N ati on alist Movem ent , 505 U

. S. 123, 130 ( 1992) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T hi s i s true eve n fora fa ciall yneutr al p ro v is io n . R i el , 485 F. 3d at755. A ccor di ngl y , t o avoi d t he dan ger of cen sors hip, “a l aw subject i ng the ex erci se o f F i rs t A m e n dm ent fr eedo m s t o the pri or r estrai nt of a l i cense m ust cont ai n narr ow , obj ect i ve, and def init e s t andar ds t o gui de the l i c e n s i n g a u t h o r i t y . ” F o rs yth C ount

y, G a. , 505 U

. S. at131 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. Per m i t t i ng sc h e m e s u n d e r w h ich d e c isio n m a k e rs a re “ g u id e d o n lyb yth e ir ow n i deas of publ i c wel far e, peac e, s afe t y , heal t h, dece ncy , good or der , m or al s or conveni ence ” have bee n r ej ect ed. Shut t l es w or th v. C i t

y of B i r m i ngham , A l a. , 394 U

. S. 147, 150 (1 9 6 9 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted) ( quot ed i n R i el , 485 F. 3d at 755)

. I n Sh u ttl e sw o rth , t he C our tfound uncons t i tut i onal a s cheme t hatal l ow ed the ci t ycomm i s s i on t o r ejec ta par ade perm i ti f “i n i t s j udgm ent ” anyof thes e gene r al conce r ns “r equi r e thati tbe r efus ed. ” Id . a t 1 5 0 -5 1

.M e lro se sp e c if ica llya rg u e s th a t th e lo n g e v ity 7 r eq u ir em en t has b ee n ap p li ed su b jecti v ely , cit ing otherbui l di ngs 20 I n contr as t , i n R iel w e appr oved a per m i ts t andar d t hat r equi r ed an a r chi t ectur al r evi ew board t o r evi ew s i gn and di s pl ayappl i cat i ons “forconform i t yi n ext er i orm at er i al composi t i on, ext er i or s t ructur al des i gn, ext ernal appea r ance and s i ze of s i m i l ar a d v ert i s i ng ori nform at i on m edi a us ed i n the ar chi tectur al per i od of the di s t r i cti n acc or dance w i t h t he R esourc e In v e n to ryo f

b u ild in g a rc h itec tu ra l sty les o f th e [ci ty ’s ] H i s t or i c D is t r i ct

. ” R i el , 485 F. 3d at755 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. W e found thatt hi s s t andar d di d not a f f o rd “ u n b rid led d isc re tio n ,” b u t in ste a d lim ited th e re v iew to c o n s id e ra tio n o f

c e rt a i n id e n tif

ie d f a c to rs . Id

. at756. T he or di nance ati s s ue al s o es t abl i s hed ce r t ai n obj ect i ve s t andar ds form at er i al , bor der , and typefa ce. F inally , w e not ed thatthe ni ne- m emberr evi ew boar d “guar ds agai ns tappl i cant s bei ng s ubj ect ed t o t he w hi m orcapr i ce of one s i ngl e off

i ci al

. ” I d. A l t h o u g h s om e r oom fors ubj ect i ve j udgm entr emai ned, “the Fi r s t A m endment does not r equi r e t he com pl et e abse nce of s uch j udgm ent

. ” Id

. A p p ly ing this stan d ard to the P ittsbu rgh Z o n ing B o ard ’s f o u r c riter ia – w h ich th e Z o n in g B o a rd h a s o u tli n e d in its d e c isio n s a s th e f

ra m e w o rk f

o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a sig n w ith an adve r t i s i ng as pect can st i l l be cl as s i fi ed as an I dent i fi cat i on Si gn

– we f

i n d t h a t t h e c r i t e r i a a r e n o t i mpe r mi s s i b l y v a gue or s ubj ect i ve. I ns t ead, t heyr epr es ent“narr ow , obj ect i ve, and defi ni t e s t andar ds ” thatgui de the Zoni ng B oar d’ s d eci s i on m aki n g . T heydo notl eave thi s det erm i nat i on s ubj ectt o a deci s i on m aker ’ s j udgm ent r egar di ng expans i ve conc ept s s uch as “ p u b lic w elfa re, pe ac e, saf ety , h ea lth , d ec en cy , g o o d o rde r, m or al s orconveni ence . ” Sh u ttl e sw o rth , 394 U

. S. at150. O ne cr i t er i on, w hi ch r equi r es t hatt he si gn be cont r ol l ed byan ow ner o r p rin c ip a l u se r o f

th e f a c ili ty , p ro v id e s a n o b jec tiv e ly ver i fi abl e s t andar d. T he other cr i t er i a ar e al s o narr ow i n s cope, r equi r i ng an eva l uat i on of def i ni t e fa ct or s i ncl udi ng t he i n t e nded l ongevi t yof the s i gn, the i m por t ance t o t h e p u b li c of t he loca ti o n to b e ide n ti fied b ythe s ig n , an d w h ethe r th e sig n ’s m a jo r p u rp o se s in c lu d e th e e sta b lish m e n t o f a sp e c if

ic des t i nat i on poi ntt o be gener al l y r ecogni zed by t he publ i c ata s et l ocati on . F i nall y , t he Z on i ng B o a rd, w hich app l i es these

7th a t h a v e h a d f re q u e n t n a m e c h a n g e s . T h is a rg u m e n t is unavai l i ng; t he names att he bui l di ngs ci t ed w er e cha nged w hen t he bui l di ng’ s m aj or t enant change d. L ongevi t y i s not a gene r al p rin c ip le th e B o a rd a p p lies to a ll sig n s, b u t ra th e r a c riter io n it has chos en t o appl y i n at t empt i ng t o det erm i ne w het h er a sign t hathas an adve r t i s i ng componentis sti ll pr i m ar i l yan I d e n t i f i c a tio n S ig n , ra th e r th a n s i m p l y a d v e r t i s i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y, t he fa i l ur e t o appl ya l ongevi t yr equi r ementt o all sign s i n t he C ity o f P itts b u rg h is n o t e v id e n c e o f im p ro p e r s u b

je c tiv ity.
M e lro se b rin g s e q u a l p ro tec tio n c h a llen g e s p u rsu a n t to 8 bot h t he Four t eenth A m endmentof th e U ni t ed St at es C o n stitu tio n a n d A r ti c le 1 , § 2 6 o f th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C ons t i tut i on. O uranal y s i s of M el r os e’ s fede r al equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m s i s equal l y appl i cabl e t o i t s equal pr ot ect i on cl ai m s under th e P e n n s y lv a n ia C o n s titu tio n . Kr am erv. W orker s ’C om p. Appeal B d. , 88 3 A

. 2d 51 8, 53 2 (Pa. 200 5 ); see a l s o B us ch v. Ma rp le N

e w to w n Sc h . D ist. , 5 6 7 F

. 3 d 8 9 , 9 5 n . 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ).

21 c riter ia in re v iew in g th e Z o n in g A d m in istra to r ’ s d e c isio n s, is c o m p rise d o f

th re e m e m b e rs, w h ich p ro tec ts a g a in st th e “ w h im orcapr i ce of

one si ngl e off

i ci al

. ” R i el , 4 8 5 F

. 3 d a t7 5 6

. We concl ude that t he cr i t er i a art i cul at ed and appl i ed byt he Zoni ng B o ard in this c ase d o n o t con fe r “u n b ri d led” d iscreti o n an d are n e ith e r u n c o n s titu tio n a lly su b je c tiv e n o r v a g u e . F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , M e l r o s e ’ s F i r s tAme n d me n tc l a i ms f a il. B . M e lro se ’s E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la im M el r os e al s o r ai s es an equal pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o t he ap p li ca ti o n o f th e Z o n ing C o d e to its si g n ap p li ca ti o n s. It 8 cont ends t hatt he Zoni ng B oar d tr eat ed i t s appl i cat i ons di ffe r ent l yt han thos e fornew s i gnage at H ei nz F i el d, PN C Par k, M e llo n A re n a , an d I.C . L ig h t A m p h ith e a ter . A c c o rd in g to M elrose ’s co m p lai n t, “larg e, co rpo rate, co m m er ci al ent i t i es” are al l ow ed t o n am e bui l di ngs i n Pi t t s bur gh “w i t houtany r es t r i ct i ons , ” w hi l e M el r os e i s s ubj ectt o “arb it rary , capr i ci ous and i r r at i onal di s cr i m i nat i on. ” ( J

. A

. at144. ) M el r os e furt her in sin u a tes in its b rie f o n a p p e a l th a t th is alle g e d ly d is p a ra teM el r os e br i efl yar gues t hatt he D i s tr ict C our tm ade 9 fi ndi ngs of fa ctt hats houl d h av e bee n l eftfort he j uryand not re so lv e d a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t. H o w e v e r, M e lro se f a ils to actu all yiden ti fyan ym aterial fa ctua l determ inations m ade by the D istr i ctC our t

. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd t hi s ar gum entt o be 22 t r eatm entw as also m ot i vat ed byt he t axpay erfundi ng of the c o n s tru c tio n o f

th e s e o th e r f

a c iliti e s .

“ T h e E q u a l P ro te c ti o n C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m endmentcomm ands t hatno St at e s hal l ‘ denyt o anyper s on w ith in its ju risd ictio n th e e q u a l p ro tec tio n o f th e law s,’ w h ich is e ss e n tiallya d ire c tio n th a t a ll p e rso n s sim ilarlysitu a ted sh o u ld be tr eat ed al i ke. ” C i t

y of C l ebur ne, Tex. v. C l ebur ne Li vi ng C tr. , 4 7 3 U

. S

. 4 3 2 , 4 3 9 (19 8 5 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). In C o n g re g a tio n Ko l A m i v. A b in g to n T o w n sh ip , w e di s cus s ed the “tw o- s t ep i nqui r y ” out l i ned i n C i t y of C l ebur ne for r evi ew i ng an equal pr ot ect i on chal l enge t o a zoni ng or di nance . 309 F. 3d 120, 136- 37 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. T hi s i nqui r y“pr oper l ypl ace s t he i ni t i al b u rd e n o n th e c o m p lain in g p a rtyf irst to d e m o n stra te th a t itis ‘sim ilarlysi tu a te d ’ to a n e n tityth a t is b e in g tre a ted d if f e re n tly b e f o re th e lo c a l m u n icip a litym u st o f f e r a ju stif

ica tio n f o r its or di nance . ” Id

. at137. O uranal y s i s i n this c as e begi ns and ends att hi s fi r s t s t ep. M el r os e has cl ear l yfai l ed t o es t abl i s h t hat i ti s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o t hos e ent i t i es w hose si gns have be en approve d. A s out l i ned supra , M e l r o s e ’ s s i g n a p p l i c a t i ons sim p lyfa il to sa ti sfythe c ri teri a o u tl ined b y th e Z o n ing B o ard f o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a sig n w ith a d v e rtisin g a sp e c ts c a n still p ro p e rl yb e c la s s if

ie d a s a n Id e n tif

ic a tio n S ig n . T o t he ex t ent that M el rose chal l eng es the cri t e ria t hemsel ves , r athert han thei rappl ic at i on t o i t s cas es , w e r ej ect t his argum ent for the sam e reas on w e rej e c ted M el rose’ s Fir st A m endmentcl ai m s . H avi ng det erm i ned thatthe cr i t er i a ar e not c o n t e n t

- b a s e d , b u ti n s t e a d f a c i l i t a t e a c o n t e x tu a l a n a l y s i s , we fi nd t hatt heys ur vi ve s crut i nyund er t he Equal Pr ot ect i on C la u s e . See Brown v. C i t y of P i t t s bur gh , 586 F. 3d 263, 283 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( “[W ] her e t he s t at e s how s a s at i s fac t ory r at i onal e for a cont ent

- neutral t i m e, pl ace , and mannerr egul at i on, that r egul at i on nece s s ar i l ys ur vi ves s crut i nyundert he Equal Pr ot ect ion C l aus e. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons o m itted). 9w ith o u t m e ri t. 23 I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof D efen dan t s.