Opinion ID: 3065246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: time, place, manner restrictions

Text: [7] Resolution of content neutrality does not end our inquiry. The sign restriction, as a content-neutral time, place and manner regulation, must also be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and [must] leave open ample alternative channels for communication of that information.’ ” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative NonViolence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)).6
We have explained that narrow tailoring to serve a significant governmental interest requires that the regulation actually advance the government’s interest, but it need not do so in the least restrictive or least intrusive way. “So long as the 6 In Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 323 (2002), the Supreme Court recognized that content-neutral time, place and manner regulations must “contain adequate standards to guide the official’s decision and render it subject to effective judicial review.” Good News has not claimed that the Sign Code lacks adequate standards for enforcement. 15414 REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government’s interest . . . the regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government’s interest could be adequately served by some less speech-restrictive alternative.” G.K. Ltd., 436 F.3d at 1073-74 (quoting State Univ. of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 479 (1989) (internal citation omitted)). See also Hill, 530 U.S. at 726 (emphasizing that “when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the statutory goal”). [8] Gilbert identifies two interests motivating § 4.402(P): aesthetics and traffic and pedestrian safety. Beauty and safety are familiar players in the free speech skirmishes involving sign ordinances. See Foti, 146 F.3d at 637 (“The City’s asserted interests in the ordinance are the oft-invoked and well-worn interests of preventing visual blight and promoting traffic and pedestrian safety.”). These purposes are readily recognized as significant governmental interests. See Metromedia v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 507-508 (1981) (“Nor can there be substantial doubt that the twin goals that the ordinance seeks to further—traffic safety and the appearance of the city—are substantial governmental goals.”); One World One Family Now v. City and County of Honolulu, 76 F.3d 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Cities have a substantial interest in protecting the aesthetic appearance of their communities by ‘avoiding visual clutter’ . . . [and] assuring safe and convenient circulation on their streets.”) (quoting Vincent, 466 U.S. at 806-07). Gilbert’s identification in the Code of the recognized interests in safety and aesthetics “is all our review requires to prove a significant interest.” Get Outdoors II v. City of San Diego, 506 F.3d 886, 893-94 (9th Cir. 2007). [9] In assessing § 4.402(P)’s tailoring, the district court credited Gilbert’s contention that “it ha[d] taken steps to REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT 15415 ensure that Plaintiffs’ speech is not overly restricted.” The restrictions on time, place and manner imposed by Gilbert on the display of Qualifying Events Signs would indeed appear to “actually advance” the aesthetic and safety interests by limiting the size, duration and proliferation of signs. See G.K. Ltd., 436 F.3d at 1073. These measures restricting the number of signs and limiting them to private property do not appear substantially broader measures than required to make sure the rights-of-way are not so thicketed with signs as to pose a safety hazard or create an aesthetic blight. The limitation on timing—twelve hours before the event and one hour after—is equally narrowly tailored to meet these interests. While it might be easier and provide broader exposure for Good News to have the sign up for twenty-four hours, the test is not convenience or optimal display. See Hill, 530 U.S. at 727 (noting when reviewing a Colorado ordinance limiting “sidewalk counseling” that “whether or not the 8-foot interval is the best possible accommodation of the competing interests at stake, we must accord a measure of deference to the judgment of the Colorado legislature.”) The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding § 4.402(P) is narrowly tailored, as it “does not sweep in more speech than is necessary to achieve the Town’s aesthetic and traffic control objectives.”
Good News contends that § 4.402(P) leaves it without adequate channels to communicate its message inviting passersby to attend church services. The district court found that “Plaintiffs’ alternative channels of communication include distributing leaflets, sending email messages or mail advertisements, walking the sidewalks with signs advertising the church services, posting signs carrying religious messages on their own property, and advertising in the newspaper, phonebook or other print media.” [10] On appeal, Good News responds that displaying Qualifying Event Signs is the most effective way of communicat15416 REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT ing its invitation, and claims that when it placed more signs it attracted more congregants. Again, the test is not whether another option would be more optimal for Good News: “[W]e are cautioned against invalidating government regulations for failing to leave open ample alternative channels unless the regulations foreclose[s] ‘an entire medium of public expression across the landscape of a particular community or setting.’ ” G.K. Ltd., 436 F.3d at 1074 (quoting Colacurcio v. City of Kent, 163 F.3d 545, 555 (9th Cir. 1998).7 While the alternative options identified by the district court may not be Good News’ preference, “we cannot invalidate the Sign Code merely because it restricts plaintiffs’ preferred method of communication.” G.K. Ltd., 436 F.3d at 1074. Nor do the alternative modes available appear especially burdensome. The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the “alternative channels of communication [it listed] ensure that Plaintiffs are able to ‘communicate effectively’ with members of the public.” [11] Section 4.402(P) is a content-neutral regulation of the time, place and manner of display of Good News’ Qualifying Event Signs; the provision is narrowly tailored to further Gilbert’s significant interests in aesthetics and traffic safety; and Good News has ample alternative channels of communicating its invitation to church services. The district court did not err in concluding that Good News was unlikely to succeed in demonstrating § 4.402(P) is unconstitutional because it is a content-based regulation that does not survive strict scrutiny. 7 Ladue provides a worthwhile contrast. The City of Ladue banned homeowners from displaying signs on their properties, except for certain identification and for sale signs. 512 U.S. at 45. The Supreme Court concluded that displaying a sign at one’s home endows the sign with special meaning, and that “[i]n this case, we are not persuaded that adequate substitutes exist for the important medium of speech that Ladue has closed off.” Id. at 56 (internal citation omitted). Here, Gilbert has not foreclosed the entire medium of temporary signs, and has left open a number of reasonable substitutes for Good News to communicate its message. REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT 15417 II. SIGN CODE’S TREATMENT OF COMMERCIAL SPEECH vERSUS NONCOMMERCIAL SPEECH [12] Municipalities stray beyond the boundaries of acceptable time, place and manner regulation when an ordinance favors commercial forms of speech over noncommercial speech. In Metromedia, the Supreme Court tackled this issue in the context of San Diego’s billboard ordinance, which permitted on-site commercial advertising, but forbade off-site commercial billboards and all noncommercial billboards. 453 U.S. at 495-96 (plurality opinion). The Court invalidated the ordinance, emphasizing that San Diego’s priorities were topsy-turvy, as “our recent commercial speech cases have consistently accorded noncommercial speech a greater degree of protection than commercial speech.” Id. at 513. In National Advertising v. City of Orange, 861 F.2d 246 (9th Cir. 1988), we echoed the lesson from Metromedia: “Merely treating noncommercial and commercial speech equally is not constitutionally sufficient. The First Amendment affords greater protection to noncommercial than to commercial expression. Regulations valid as to commercial speech may be unconstitutional as to noncommercial.” Id. at 248 (internal citations omitted).8 [13] Good News argues that the Sign Code advantages commercial speech over the noncommercial speech found in Qualifying Event Signs. The district court concluded, however, that Good News’ “noncommercial speech enjoys fewer restrictions than its commercial counterparts.” The court performed a careful comparison of the restrictions placed on 8 See also Berger, 569 F.3d at 1055 (holding invalid an ordinance that restricts speech within 30 feet of a “captive audience” in a public park, but excepts concessionaires: “First, the rule’s preference for concessionaires and licensees leads to the odd result that purely commercial speech, which receives more limited First Amendment protection than noncommercial speech, is allowed and encouraged, while artistic and political speech is not. This bias in favor of commercial speech is, on its own, cause for the rule’s invalidation.”). 15418 REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT Qualifying Event Signs versus “Weekend Directional Signs” for subdivision sales, the commercial speech showcased by Good News as receiving more favorable treatment.9 The district court concluded that Qualifying Event Signs come out on top as the total number of Qualifying Event Signs allowed is greater; Qualifying Event Signs may be placed during weekdays as well as weekends; the size allowed for Qualifying Events Signs is greater; and although the Qualifying Events Signs may not be placed in rights-of-way, they are not restricted to a two-mile radius from the event. Of “paramount importance” to the court was the fact that no permit is required to display a Qualifying Events Sign, in contrast to the permit required for the Weekend Directional Signs. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding, after close examination, that the Sign Code does not favor commercial speech over non-commercial speech, and denying a preliminary injunction on that basis. Cf. Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) (invalidating sign ordinance that made it “easier, cheaper, and faster for [the plaintiff] to post a real estate sign than a campaign sign,” and thereby discriminated against noncommercial speech in favor of commercial speech). III. SIGN CODE’S TREATMENT OF DIFFERENT FORMS OF NONCOMMERCIAL SPEECH [14] Not only must a municipality refrain from favoring commercial over noncommercial speech, it also may not favor certain noncommercial speech over other noncommercial speech without facing stricter review. In Metromedia, the 9 A Weekend Directional Sign is a “temporary off-site sign directing motorists to a developing subdivision.” § 4.405(B)(2). According to the Code, fifteen Weekend Directional Signs may be permitted to each subdivision plat, and the signs may be placed within two miles of the subdivision perimeter, including in public rights-of-way. The signs may be no greater than four feet high and three feet square; they may be installed after 6:00 p.m. on Friday and must be removed by 8:00 a.m. the following Monday. Id. REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT 15419 Supreme Court warned against such an approach: “Although the city may distinguish between the relative value of different categories of commercial speech, the city does not have the same range of choice in the area of noncommercial speech to evaluate the strength of, or distinguish between, various communicative interests.” 453 U.S. at 514. We heeded Metromedia’s warning in National Advertising Co. v. City of Orange. The City of Orange imposed a general ban on offsite signs, with exceptions for “certain governmental signs and flags, memorial tablets, recreational signs, and temporary political, real estate, construction, and advertising signs.” 861 F.2d at 247. We concluded that, through its exemptions, Orange made content-based distinctions among categories of noncommercial speech, and invalidated the ordinance as to noncommercial speech. Id. at 250. Compare Nat’l Advert. Co. v. Town of Babylon, 900 F.2d 551, 557 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that sign ordinance’s exceptions to sign ban for temporary political signs and signs identifying parades, festivals, and other similar occasions “impermissibly discriminate between types of noncommercial speech based on content”) with Messer v. City of Douglasville, Georgia, 975 F.2d 1505, 1513 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding exemptions in sign code from permitting requirement are not unconstitutional and noting they are more limited than the exemptions in Metromedia or City of Orange; do not “express a preference between noncommercial messages;” and do not include “specific exemptions for political, historical, religious or special event signs”). Good News argues that the Sign Code makes distinctions between Qualifying Event Signs and other forms of noncommercial speech, thereby impermissibly favoring some noncommercial speech. A preliminary review of the nineteen exemptions to the permit requirement reveals several categories related to noncommercial speech. For example, an “Ideological Sign” is defined as “[a] sign communicating a message or ideas for non-commercial purposes that is not a construction sign, directional sign, temporary directional sign 15420 REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT relating to a qualifying event, political sign, garage sale sign, or a sign owned or required by a governmental agency.” § 4.402(J). In other words, an Ideological Sign includes a message or idea that is distinct from a Political Sign that supports a candidate or ballot measure or from a Qualifying Event Sign. [15] Although Ideological Signs, Political Signs, and Qualifying Event Signs are all exempted from the Sign Code’s permit requirement, and treated favorably under the Code in that respect, each category faces different restrictions and requirements. The district court carefully analyzed the other First Amendment challenges, but did not address whether Good News is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that § 4.402(P) impermissibly discriminates among certain forms of noncommercial speech. On remand, the district court will have the opportunity to determine whether Gilbert impermissibly “evaluate[d] the strength of, or distinguished between, various [noncommercial] communicative interests.” Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 514.