Opinion ID: 3064454
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the COAA is overbroad and vague; (2) the COAA is

Text: enforced via unconstitutional prior restraints; (3) the grandfathering provision violates equal protection; and (4) the COAA violates the suppression doctrine and substantive due process. These claims do not depend on the lack of statutory exception for non-commercial speech and thus remain live controversies. [3] Maldonado’s claim that the state court injunction bars him from exercising his First Amendment Rights is also unaf- 1 Maldonado’s dispute over the injunction centers on the multiple claims relating to the district court’s allegedly improper reformation of the statute, and claimed failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). MALDONADO v. KEMPTON 2155 fected by the changes to the COAA. Although the purpose of that injunction was to bar Maldonado from continued violation of the COAA, the language of the injunction bars him from engaging in offsite advertising on his billboard, not simply from violating the COAA. Therefore, the change to the COAA itself has no effect on this aspect of the state court injunction. This claim is addressed below in our analysis of prior restraint.