page_title: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
section_title: Opinion of the Court
hierarchical_section_title: Reed v. Town of Gilbert / Opinion of the Court
caption_attribution_description: English: Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
context_page_description: Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.
  Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town's sign ordinance imposed content-based restrictions that did not survive strict scrutiny because the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Justice Thomas also clarified that strict scrutiny should always be applied when a law is content-based on its face.
context_section_description: Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town's sign ordinance was "content-based on its face" in light of the fact that the "restrictions in the Sign Code that apply to any given sign [depend] entirely on the communicative content of the sign". Because the church's signs were "treated differently from signs conveying other types of ideas", there was "no need to consider the government’s justifications or purposes for enacting the Code to determine whether it is subject to strict scrutiny". Justice Thomas rejected the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the ordinance was content-neutral because the regulations were not based on "disagree[ment] with the message conveyed" and the reasons for regulating the various categories of signs were "unrelated to the content of the sign[s]". Rather, he emphasized that "[a] law that is content-based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government’s benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of 'animus toward the ideas contained' in the regulated speech". Justice Thomas explained that "innocent motives" do not eliminate the danger of censorship, because governments may one day use content-based laws to regulate "disfavored speech".
  Additionally, Justice Thomas rejected the town's assertion that a law is only content-based if it "censor[s] or favor[s]" specific viewpoints or ideas. The town argued that its sign code was not unconstitutional because it neither endorsed nor suppressed any particular viewpoints or ideas. However, Justice Thomas clarified that a statute is content-based if it singles out a specific subject, even though it may not target ideas or viewpoints within that subject matter. Furthermore, he also rejected the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that the ordinance was content-neutral because it targeted specific classes of speakers, rather than the content of their speech. Although he recognized that speaker-based restrictions were only "the beginning — not the end — of the inquiry", Justice Thomas held that "laws favoring some speakers over others demand strict scrutiny when the legislature’s speaker preference reflects a content preference".
  Because the ordinance imposed content-based restrictions on free speech, Justice Thomas held that the ordinance would only be constitutional if it survived strict scrutiny. Assuming that the town's interests of preserving aesthetic appeal and traffic safety were compelling, he concluded that these were "hopelessly underinclusive" because the ordinance allowed for the proliferation of an unlimited number of larger, ideological signs that pose the same threats to aesthetics and traffic as directional signs. In fact, Justice Thomas suggested that a "sharply worded" ideological sign may be more likely to distract drivers than a directional sign. Justice Thomas also suggested that some directional signs "may be essential, both for vehicles and pedestrians, to guide traffic or to identify hazards and ensure safety". Therefore, Justice Thomas remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court's opinion.
caption: In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that "innocent motives" do not eliminate the danger of censorship.[36]
exif: {"Image ImageWidth": "2848", "Image ImageLength": "4288", "Image BitsPerSample": "[8, 8, 8]", "Image Compression": "Uncompressed", "Image PhotometricInterpretation": "2", "Image Make": "NIKON CORPORATION", "Image Model": "NIKON D2Xs", "Image Orientation": "Horizontal (normal)", "Image SamplesPerPixel": "3", "Image XResolution": "300", "Image YResolution": "300", "Image PlanarConfiguration": "1", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image Software": "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows", "Image DateTime": "2007:09:25 11:41:27", "Image ExifOffset": "308", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "72", "Thumbnail YResolution": "72", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "942", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "4471", "EXIF ExposureTime": "1/50", "EXIF FNumber": "10", "EXIF ExposureProgram": "Manual", "EXIF ISOSpeedRatings": "160", "EXIF ExifVersion": "0221", "EXIF DateTimeOriginal": "2007:09:24 07:43:46", "EXIF DateTimeDigitized": "2007:09:24 07:43:46", "EXIF ShutterSpeedValue": "352741/62500", "EXIF ApertureValue": "415241/62500", "EXIF ExposureBiasValue": "-1/3", "EXIF MaxApertureValue": "49/10", "EXIF MeteringMode": "Pattern", "EXIF LightSource": "Flash", "EXIF Flash": "Flash did not fire", "EXIF FocalLength": "112", "EXIF SubSecTimeOriginal": "90", "EXIF SubSecTimeDigitized": "90", "EXIF ColorSpace": "Uncalibrated", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "2400", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "3300", "EXIF SensingMethod": "One-chip color area", "EXIF FileSource": "Digital Camera", "EXIF SceneType": "Directly Photographed", "EXIF CVAPattern": "[2, 0, 2, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2]", "EXIF CustomRendered": "Normal", "EXIF ExposureMode": "Manual Exposure", "EXIF WhiteBalance": "Manual", "EXIF DigitalZoomRatio": "1", "EXIF FocalLengthIn35mmFilm": "168", "EXIF SceneCaptureType": "Standard", "EXIF GainControl": "None", "EXIF Contrast": "Soft", "EXIF Saturation": "Normal", "EXIF Sharpness": "Soft", "EXIF SubjectDistanceRange": "0"}