Opinion ID: 2977905
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Thomas

Text: As described above, the Supreme Court held in Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 534 U.S. 316, 323 & n.3 (2002), that an ordinance (1) must contain adequate standards to guide the official’s decision, (2) must not be based on the content of the message, (3) must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and (4) must leave open ample alternatives for communication. The sign ordinances in question satisfy all four of these factors. First, the sign ordinances contain narrow, objective, and definite nondiscretionary criteria. The ordinances contain very particular requirements for signs, including limitations on size, height, location, area, and setback conditions. Numerous other cases involving sign ordinances have found similar criteria to be sufficient to withstand constitutional scrutiny. See, e.g., Covenant Media of S.C., LLC v. City of N. Charleston, 493 F.3d 421, 435 (4th Cir. 2007); Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2003). On their face, the sign ordinances contain enough specificity to render the decision of whether to grant or deny an application virtually ministerial. The first Thomas element—that the ordinances contain adequate standards to guide the City’s decision—is therefore satisfied. Second, as discussed above, nothing in the text of the sign ordinances indicates that content is a factor in the approval process. The only distinctions drawn between various types of speech in the ordinances are the classifications of different types of signs, such as “business” or “advertising,” primarily for purposes of organization. Third, goals such as aesthetics and safety are legitimate governmental interests. Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 509-10. Business signs hold the potential to distract or impede the view of drivers. Excessive signage can also diminish the beauty of the surrounding area. A sign’s size and structure can also affect the safety of its construction. The sign ordinances in question reflect the City’s justified concern over these interests. According to the plaintiffs, however, the ordinances are not narrowly tailored to serve those interests because they do not specifically identify the grounds on which the B&SE may deny an application. The City responds that the ordinances permit the denial of Nos. 08-1329/1361 H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC, et al. Page 19 v. City of Detroit a permit only on the grounds outlined therein. In Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988), the Supreme Court cautioned that “where an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.” Thus, “in evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must . . . consider any limiting construction that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered.” Ward v. Rock Against Racisim, 491 U.S. 781, 795-96 (1989) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The “Business Signs” section of the Detroit Code states that its purpose is to regulate business signs within the City of Detroit; to limit the abundance of signs in order to reduce motorist distraction and loss of safe sight distance; to promote public convenience; to preserve property values; to support and complement land use objectives as set forth in the city’s master plan and ordinances; and to enhance the aesthetic appearance and quality of life within the city. Detroit Code § 3-7-1. We are thus bound by DeBartolo and Ward to accept the construction of the ordinances offered by the City. Pursuant to that construction—that the ordinances permit the denial of a permit only on the grounds outlined therein—the sign ordinances satisfy the third, “narrowly tailored” Thomas element. Finally, we must consider whether the restrictions imposed by the sign ordinances “leave open ample alternatives for communication.” Thomas, 354 U.S. at 323 n.3. The ordinances permit the erection of signs that meet the City’s stated criteria for height, size, and other factors. Businesses are also free to use any of the myriad other forms of available communication (e.g., print, television, radio, etc.) to advertise. The ordinances therefore satisfy the fourth Thomas element. Application of the four Thomas elements discussed above would generally conclude our analysis in favor of the constitutionality of the ordinances. But the plaintiffs contend, as they did below, that Thomas also requires that content-neutral licensing ordinances (1) contain a brief, specified time limit, and (2) require the decisionmaker to specify the grounds for denying an application. The district court correctly declined to apply these additional elements. Nos. 08-1329/1361 H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC, et al. Page 20 v. City of Detroit In Thomas, the Supreme Court noted approvingly that the Chicago ordinance at issue, which governed the use of city parks by large groups, contained a 28-day deadline for processing applications and also provided that the Park District must clearly explain its reasons for denial. Thomas, 354 U.S. at 324. But the Court never stated that these additional factors were requirements to prevent a content-neutral regulation from being declared unconstitutional. Chicago’s decision-deadline and rejection-basis provisions are more accurately understood as a sort of “icing on the cake,” demonstrating that the challenged ordinance well exceeded the Court’s newly enunciated standard. To read the Court’s language otherwise would negate its earlier holding that content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions need not contain Freedman safeguards. Id. at 322; see S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th Cir. 2004) (“To read [Thomas as requiring a time limit] would flatly contradict the decision’s clear holding that time, place, and manner regulations need not contain the Freedman safeguards.”); Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-83 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that the absence of time limits for the municipality to process permit applications did not render a content-neutral sign ordinance unconstitutional); Griffin v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 288 F.3d 1309, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (limiting Freedman’s procedural safeguards requirement to “explicit censorship schemes[,] which by definition [are] not content-neutral”). Because the City’s sign ordinances—and the sign-permit application process derived from them—are content-neutral regulations that satisfy all four Thomas requirements, they are facially constitutional. We will therefore not disturb the district court’s order holding to that effect. The plaintiffs were thus properly denied injunctive relief against the general enforcement of the sign ordinances. D. Scope of injunctive relief on the plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge to the sign ordinances We note, before concluding, that the injunctive and declaratory relief that the district court did grant to the plaintiffs may at this point be technically insufficient. The court’s order provided as follows: [T]he Plaintiffs are legally entitled to erect the signs that were described on their sign permit application, and, in so doing, permanently enjoins the City of Detroit from preventing them from erecting and publishing these signs; Nos. 08-1329/1361 H.D.V.-Greektown, LLC, et al. Page 21 v. City of Detroit provided, however, that the Plaintiffs’ publication of the signs must fully conform with the existing ordinances, codes and related regulations. H.D.V. - Greektown, LLC v. City of Detroit, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10940 at . At oral argument, the plaintiffs indicated that they are no longer using the “Hustler” name previously listed on the sign applications and that they will accordingly need to erect signs bearing another name. Under the existing terms of the order, the plaintiffs would arguably be required to submit another sign application reflecting the new name, which the City could conceivably ignore again until the plaintiffs brought a new round of litigation. We therefore modify the district court’s order to declare that the plaintiffs may legally erect signs on the Premises bearing whatever non-obscene business name they choose, as long as the signs otherwise conform with the most recent application on file regarding dimensions, lighting, and other characteristics governed by the sign ordinances. The City is enjoined from preventing the plaintiffs from doing so.