Court Opinion

ID: 9489757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:23:25.08653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:41.910584
License: Public Domain

CYR, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
As I agree with the district court, see Globe Newspaper, 847 F.Supp. at 193-95, that the Commission has yet to establish, inter alia, that its Street Furniture Guideline is “narrowly tailored,” Perry, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. at 955; see North Ave. Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441, 444 (7th Cir.1996) (noting that government must show that its “time, manner, and place” restriction on protected speech is “narrowly tailored”), I respectfully dissent.
This case turns on whether the Commission established that its outright ban on all newsraeks within the District represents a reasonable means to its concededly legitimate regulatory end, in the sense that the ban “is in proportion to the interest served”; that is to say, “not necessarily the least restrictive means,” but one which is “narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.” Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 416 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. at *1961510 n. 12 (quoting Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 480, 109 S.Ct. 3028, 3035, 106 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989)) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). As the Supreme Court has made clear, both in Fox and Cincinnati, the government must demonstrate that it “carefully calculated” the resulting burdens on expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 416 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. at 1510 n. 12, which involves something more than simply identifying a legitimate regulatory purpose.
The Commission is specifically charged with preserving the District as a unique “old Boston” community and the importance of preserving the architectural and historical esthetics within the District, for the benefit of the community, the Commonwealth, and the Nation, is not in question. See Vincent, 466 U.S. at 806-07, 104 S.Ct. at 2129-30. Nonetheless, the sweeping presumption indulged by the Commission — that the nonconforming nature of all newsracks represents an esthetic blight only an outright ban can remedy — is not entitled to deference in the First Amendment context. The Commission is required first to demonstrate that it carefully considered obvious alternative regulatory means before imposing its outright ban against all newsracks within the District. See Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 417 n. 13, 113 S.Ct. at 1510 n. 13 (rejecting “mere rational basis review”). The record does not demonstrate that the Commission has met its burden.
By the same token, the unquestionable efficiency of a total ban on all newsracks does not satisfy the “narrow tailoring” requirement. Otherwise, there would be virtually no role left to be served by the requirement that governmental entities “carefully calculate” the burdens their regulatory actions impose bn protected expressive activity, see id. at 416 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. at 1510 n. 12, since an outright ban will almost invariably prove most efficient in rooting out unbecoming appurtenances. Moreover, unlike public-safety regulations, for example, esthetics-based regulations often stem from subjective assessments not readily amenable either to objective measurement or empirical refutation, thereby warranting careful judicial scrutiny. See Metromedia, 453 U.S. at. 510, 101 S.Ct. at 2893-94; see also Ward, 491 U.S. at 793, 109 S.Ct. at 2754-55.
The historical basis for the Commission ban against all newsracks within the District is incontestable: newsracks “did not exist at the time with which the [Cjommission’s efforts are concerned.” While the District is “a tangible reminder of old Boston,” however, it nonetheless remains a contemporary residential and commercial community. Charles Street, for example, accommodates numerous modem commercial conveniences (e.g., gas stations) presumably alien, if not offensive, to the esthetic sensibilities of even the most indurate “old Bostonian.” Thus, notwithstanding the Commission mandate to preserve the District’s colonial and post-colonial characteristics, residents rely upon (or at least tolerate) many uncharacteristic obtru-sions, at least one of which (cable television boxes) presumably was introduced after the Commission came into existence in 1955. Various other anachronous utilities abound as well — including paved roads and sidewalks, automobiles, traffic signals, streetlights, trash receptacles, mail boxes, and fire hydrants — not only along Charles Street but throughout the District. Even though many of these nonconforming modernities are regulated by the Commission — often robustly — rather than banned outright, the Commission concedes that newsracks are the only “street furniture” it subjects to an outright ban.
As the district court correctly noted, there can be no question that an outright ban on all nonconforming modernities (e.g., as at Plymouth Plantation or Williamsburg) offers the most efficient approach to restoring historical and architectural integrity. Where the First Amendment is implicated, however, efficient governmental regulation must be “narrowly tailored.” Yet the Commission neither demonstrates that “obvious less-burdensome alternatives” are unavailable, Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 417 n; 13,113 S.Ct. at 1510 n. 13, nor explains why the ad hoc permitting process it uses to regulate anachronous utilities such as cable television boxes should not be enlisted for newsrack regulation. Cf. Vincent, 466 *197U.S. at 808, 104 S.Ct. at 2130-31 (noting Metromedia plurality’s view that “[i]t is not speculative to recognize that billboards by their very nature, wherever located and however constructed, can be perceived as an ‘esthetic harm’ ”) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the Commission has not explained its rationale for concluding — let alone demonstrated, see Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 417, 113 S.Ct. at 1510 — that a permissible basis exists for assuming that newsracks, without regard to size, signage, design, color, location or number, cannot comport with its esthetic standards. See Chicago Newspaper Publishers Ass’n v. City of Wheaton, 697 F.Supp. 1464, 1470 (N.D.Ill.1988) (noting that city “has not explained ... how a newsrack on a residential street destroys the ‘character’ of the neighborhood any more than a mailbox, utility pole, fire hydrant, or traffic sign”).26 Nor has the Commission shown that any perceived “visual clutter” could not be addressed by restricting, severely if necessary, the location (e.g., within the Charles Street “commercial” zone) and the number of newsracks within the District. Plainly, these obvious alternatives, if efficacious, would be much less burdensome on the important First Amendment expressive activity the Commission proposes to ban outright.
As the court appropriately acknowledges, of course, considerable deference is due the Commission. See supra p. 190.
Nevertheless, deference to an outright ban on protected expressive activity cannot be predicated on anything less than a reasoned showing that the Commission “carefully calculated” alternative means with a view to their suitability to address legitimate regulatory interests proportionate to the resulting burdens on any protected First Amendment activity. Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 416 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. at 1510 n. 12; see also Vincent, 466 U.S. at 803 n. 22, 104 S.Ct. at 2127 n. 22 (warning that courts “may not simply assume that the ordinance will always advance the asserted state interests sufficiently to justify its abridgment of expressive activity”). The Commission adopted its outright District-wide ban on all newsracks without either attempting less draconian regulation or evaluating by incremental experimentation alternative approaches to controlling and reducing *198any visual blight caused by contemporary newsraeks. See Cincinnati, 507 U.S. at 417, 113 S.Ct. at 1510 (noting that newsrack ban was not a “reasonable fit,” since city “failed to address its recently developed concern about newsraeks by regulating the size, shape, appearance, or number”).
I do not suggest that government invariably must engage in actual experimentation before settling on an outright ban, especially if it can demonstrate that the particular expressive activity creates a serious public nuisance too pressing to countenance delay. Nevertheless, outright bans on protected modes of expressive activity such as newspaper distribution are not entitled to judicial deference absent the required showing that less burdensome alternatives were “carefully calculated.” See Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. at 2758 (noting that there is no “narrow tailoring” if government “regulate[s] expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals”); Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 750, 108 S.Ct. at 2140; Providence Journal Co. v. City of Newport, 665 F.Supp. 107, 110 (D.R.I.1987) (collecting cases holding that newsraeks are entitled to “full First Amendment protection”); cf. Vincent, 466 U.S. at 813, 104 S.Ct. at 2133 (noting that specific locations (utility poles) for posting signs were not traditionally recognized public fora like public streets); Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 490, 101 S.Ct. at 2883-84 (upholding outright ban on off-premises billboards carrying less-protected commercial speech). On the other hand, “narrow tailoring” in the present context does not require the government to employ the “least restrictive means,” but to demonstrate that it “carefully calculated” the suitability of obvious alternatives proportional to its legitimate esthetic objectives. Each ease is to be judged on its particular facts, of course, and a total ban might pass muster were it made to appear that the Commission “carefully calculated” less burdensome alternatives and justifiably found them wanting.
The failure to make such a showing is especially flagrant in the present context, since the Commission settled on a total ban because newsraeks were unknown in post-colonial times, yet it continues to regulate, rather than prohibit outright, numerous post-colonial appurtenances, without explaining why a newsrack need inevitably' be more unbecoming historically and architecturally than a trash receptacle or a streetlight pole. If its response is merely that the trash receptacle or streetlight pole serves a more useful purpose which must somehow be tolerated, then the Commission seriously undervalues both the utility of expressive activity (i.e., newspaper distribution) and - the First Amendment protection to which it is entitled. As the failure to demonstrate the required “narrow tailoring” undermines the challenged Street Furniture Guideline under the three-part Perry test, I would affirm the district court judgment.

. In its Staff Report, the Commission cites its 1983 and 1990 surveys of the District’s news-racks, and identifies five alternatives: (1) an outright ban on all newsracks; (2) an outright ban on all newsracks, except those distributing non''commercial” speech, whose design and placement would be regulated; (3) an outright ban on all newsracks in District residential areas, with design and placement regulations for non-"commercial” newsracks on Charles Street; (4) no outright ban on any newsrack, but general regulation of their size, design, color, location, and attachment; and (5) delaying any District regulation pending the City’s decision whether to regulate newsracks city-wide. The Staff Report fails to demonstrate the required “narrow tailoring,” for three reasons.
First, the Report was based solely on surveys of then-existing newsracks, see Commission Staff Report, at 65 ("None of the distribution box designs can be said to be architecturally appropriate"), and does not consider the feasibility of a different newsrack design more consonant with the desired esthetics. Indeed, the analysis of Alternative #4 merely states that any such design criteria would have "to be drafted” at some later time. See id. at 68. This plainly does not amount to “careful calculation.”
Second, the Commission points to no other record evidence that it ever actively considered alternative newsrack design proposals. Even though the Commission now acknowledges that it failed to send notice of its November 15, 1990, ■public hearing to plaintiffs' respective circulation departments, the Staff Report touts the fact that, after years of public opposition to a newsrack ban, plaintiffs had lodged no comments at the public hearing. In a letter to the Commission shortly after the first guideline was promulgated, however, the Boston Globe not only objected to the "notice” provided by the Commission, but reminded the Commission of the Globe's "historical willingness” throughout the preceding eight-year period to negotiate a mutually agreeable newsrack guideline short of a total ban.
Finally, the Report rejects Alternatives 2-4 on the ground that they would tax the Commission's limited enforcement resources. Administrative burden is an appropriate consideration in the "careful calculation” inquiry. Yet even accepting the Commission’s uncorroborated reference to. its limited administrative resources, it fails because it simply presumes, sub silentio, that the expressive activity here involved is somehow due less protection than the anachronous appurtenances the Commission has decided to regulate, but not to ban, and therefore that it is less deserving of individualized treatment under the Commission's ad hoc permitting process. Nor does the Report attempt a comprehensive overview of current Commission administrative enforcement expenditures relating to its regulation of these other unhistorical appurtenances.