Opinion ID: 218050
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ban on Supergraphic Signs

Text: Plaintiff argues that the City impermissibly distinguishes between its supergraphic signs (which are prohibited) and identical supergraphic signs elsewhere in the City (which are permitted). Plaintiff admits, however, that the permitted supergraphic signs are located within City-created Signage Supplemental Use Districts or other special property development projects, and its own signs are not. Because all the supergraphic signs to which Plaintiff points to substantiate this claim are located within SUDs or approved through special property development projects, Plaintiff's claim fails. In World Wide Rush, the Ninth Circuit rejected an unfettered discretion challenge to the exceptions in the sign ordinance that allowed the City to create SUDs, to enact special plans, and enter into development agreements because those exceptions derived from the City's regular and well-organized legislative power to regulate land use. 606 F.3d at 688. In turn, Metro Lights explained that if an exception itself it permissible, [i]t would be strange, then, if the prohibition suddenly violated the Constitution because the municipality made use of such an exception. 551 F.3d at 909 n. 12. The court wondered: How can it be constitutional to make an exception to a law, but unconstitutional for the exception to operate in practice? Id. If the City can validly enact SUDs to permit signs, then certainly it may constitutionally permit sign owners to erect signs in those districts without running a foul of Central Hudson. And Plaintiff's conclusory argument that the City arbitrarily draws the lines to create SUDs cannot save this claim, as the City's line-drawing is assuredly a classically legislative function within the meaning of both Metro Lights and World Wide Rush. Moreover, the creation of SUDs is indistinguishable from the entering of a contract over advertising at transit stops, as in Metro Lights, as both involve the City's discretion to take a measured legislative response to sign proliferation. Therefore, Plaintiff has not raised even serious questions that its speech rights were violated if the City allows supergraphics in SUDs, while prohibiting Plaintiff's sign located outside of SUDs.