Reed v. Town of Gilbert

The Town of Gilbert identified three types of temporary signs and applied different regulations to each type. Match the type of sign with the regulations the city imposed on it.

A.  May be up to 20 square feet and are permitted in all zoning districts without time limits.

B.  May be up to 16 square feet on residential property and 32 square feet on nonresidential property and are limited to 60 days before and 15 days after elections.

C.  May be up to 6 square feet, may be placed on private property or public rights-of-way and are allowed no more than 12 hours before and event and 1 hour after.

A. Ideological Signs

B. Political Signs

C. Temporary directional signs

Justice Thomas in his majority opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert said the town’s sign ordinance was content-based

Choose from the following options.

Because it reflected official disapproval of certain views.

Because it singled out certain viewpoints for disapproval.

Because of the city’s motivation for enacting the ordinance.

On its face.

On its face.

Justice Breyer, in his concurrence in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, said application of strict scrutiny to all content-based regulation of speech may not be appropriate in all cases. Breyer would reserve the use of strict scrutiny to all but one of the following. In which would he NOT apply strict scrutiny?

Choose from the following options.

Regulations that serve important governmental objectives that can be achieved in no less restrictive way.

Regulation of expression in a public forum.

Regulation that discriminates on the basis of viewpoints being expressed.

Regulation that harms First Amendment interests disproportionately to the regulatory objectives.

Regulations that serve important governmental objectives that can be achieved in no less restrictive way.

Justice Kagan’s concurring opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert argued that strict scrutiny of content-based regulation was best reserved to those instances where

Choose from the following options.

The regulation clearly identified a disfavored point of view.

The regulation was content-based on its face.

The regulation posed a realistic possibility of official repression afoot.

The regulation clearly favored either Republicans or Democrats.

The regulation posed a realistic possibility of official repression afoot.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance regulating

Choose from the following options.

Ideological, political, and event signs.

Demonstrations and protests.

Public nudity.

Commercial billboards.

Ideological, political, and event signs.

The US Supreme Court used _____________ to analyze the regulation the town of Gilbert employed to regulate signs in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.

Choose from the following options.

Strict scrutiny

Intermediate scrutiny

The laugh test

The rational-basis test

Strict scrutiny

Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert says the court has recognized different ways in which a regulation might be content-based. Which of the following is NOT one of them?

Choose from the following options.

The regulation on its face draws distinctions based on content.

The regulation is intended to prevent unlawful actions.

The regulation cannot be justified without reference to content.

The regulation was adopted because of disagreement with the speech.

The regulation is intended to prevent unlawful actions.

The majority opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert defined “content-based” regulations of speech as ones that

Choose from the following options.

Favor one political party over another.

Apply to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.

Single out certain political or ideological messages for differential treatment.

Limit the time, place, or manner in which expressive activities may be conducted.

Apply to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.

What was the central issue in Reed v. Town of Gilbert?

Whether the Town of Gilbert's Sign Code, which imposed different restrictions on signs based on their content (e.g., ideological, political, temporary directional), violated the First Amendment.

What is a 'Sign Code' in the context of Reed v. Town of Gilbert?

A comprehensive set of rules adopted by the Town of Gilbert governing the display of outdoor signs.

How did Gilbert's Sign Code categorize signs?

It categorized signs based on the type of information they conveyed, such as 'Ideological Signs,' 'Political Signs,' and 'Temporary Directional Signs Relating to a Qualifying Event.'

Which category of signs did the Code treat most favorably?

Ideological Signs

What are 'Political Signs' under the Code?

Temporary signs designed to influence the outcome of an election.

What are 'Temporary Directional Signs Relating to a Qualifying Event'?

Signs directing people to a meeting or event sponsored by a non-profit organization (religious, charitable, educational, etc.).

Who were the petitioners in the case?

Good News Community Church and its pastor, Clyde Reed.

Why did the Church cite the Sign Code?

The Church was cited for exceeding time limits for temporary directional signs and for failing to include the date of the event.

What is the core principle of the First Amendment regarding speech regulation?

The government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

What standard of review applies to content-based laws?

Strict Scrutiny

What does 'content-based' mean according to the Court?

A law is content based if it applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.

Can a law be content-based even if it's facially neutral?

Yes, if it cannot be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech or was adopted due to disagreement with the message.

Why is the Town's Sign Code considered content-based on its face?

It defines categories like 'Temporary Directional Signs' based on whether they convey a message directing people to a qualifying event.

Does a benign motive or content-neutral justification make a facially content-based law constitutional?

No. An innocuous justification cannot transform a facially content-based law into one that is content-neutral. Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship.

What was the Court of Appeals' reasoning for why the Sign Code was content-neutral?

They argued the Town didn't adopt it based on disagreement with messages, and justifications were unrelated to content. They also claimed it didn't mention ideas or viewpoints.

How did the Supreme Court counter the Court of Appeals' reasoning?

The Supreme Court stated that the first step is to determine if the law is content-based on its face. If it is, strict scrutiny applies regardless of motive. The Court also clarified that content-based rules target subject matter, not just viewpoints.

What are the two governmental interests the Town offered to justify its distinctions?

Preserving the Town's aesthetic appeal and traffic safety.

Why did the Court find these justifications insufficient under strict scrutiny?

The distinctions were 'hopelessly underinclusive.' The Code allowed more and larger ideological signs while strictly limiting directional signs, failing to advance aesthetics or safety effectively.

What are some content-neutral options for sign regulation?

Regulating size, building materials, lighting, moving parts, and portability. On public property, signs can be forbidden in an evenhanded way.

What kind of sign regulations might survive strict scrutiny?

Ordinances narrowly tailored to protecting safety, like warning signs for hazards, signs directing traffic, or street numbers.

Justice Alito's concurring opinion mentioned content-neutral rules that municipalities could enact. Give an example.

Rules regulating the size of signs, or the locations where signs may be placed.

What was Justice Breyer's concern with the majority's approach?

He believed 'content discrimination' should be treated as a 'rule of thumb' rather than an automatic trigger for strict scrutiny in all cases.

What alternative approach did Justice Breyer suggest?

A more holistic analysis weighing the harm to speech against the importance of regulatory objectives, and considering less restrictive means.

What was Justice Kagan's main point in her concurrence?

She expressed concern that the majority's strict application of strict scrutiny to all facially content-based sign ordinances would invalidate many reasonable local regulations.

What does 'content discrimination' mean in the context of the First Amendment?

Government regulation of speech based on its topic, subject matter, or the idea or message expressed.

What is the definition of a "content-based regulation"?

A regulation that targets specific types of expression based on their message, idea, subject matter, or viewpoint. It treats certain content differently from other content.

What level of judicial scrutiny is applied to content-based regulations?

Strict Scrutiny.

What does "strict scrutiny" require for a government regulation to be constitutional?

The government must prove the regulation serves a "compelling government interest" and is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest, meaning it is the least restrictive means possible.

What is the definition of a "content-neutral regulation"?

A regulation that applies equally to all content or viewpoints. It does not discriminate based on what is being expressed.

What level of judicial scrutiny is applied to content-neutral regulations?

Intermediate Scrutiny.

What does "intermediate scrutiny" require for a government regulation to be constitutional?

The government must show the regulation serves an "important government interest" and is "substantially related" to achieving that interest.

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, why did the Supreme Court find the town's sign code was "content-based"?

The code categorized signs and applied different rules to them based on their content, such as "ideological signs," "political signs," and "temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event."

Why did the Town of Gilbert's sign code fail strict scrutiny?

The Court found the Town's justifications (preserving aesthetic appeal and traffic safety) were not compelling enough to survive strict scrutiny. The law was "underinclusive" because it restricted some signs while allowing other, larger signs, failing to adequately address the stated interests.

What did the Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision mean for future government regulations?

Governments can still regulate signs, but they must do so in a content-neutral way, such as rules about sign size, location, lighting, or the total number of signs. They cannot generally regulate what is being said based on its content.

According to the provided notes, what is an example of a permissible, content-neutral sign regulation?

A rule limiting the overall size of all signs, or a rule limiting the locations where signs can be placed.

What was the criticism of the majority opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert from the concurring opinion?

The concurring opinion argued that the majority's rigid application of strict scrutiny to every sign ordinance with a subject-matter exemption was too broad and would lead to courts invalidating many "entirely reasonable" local laws. The author believed the Gilbert ordinance could have been struck down under a less rigid standard, like intermediate scrutiny.

What prior cases are cited in the notes as examples of a less rigid application of strict scrutiny to content-based laws?

Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) and City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994).

How did the Town of Gilbert's sign ordinance fail under even "the laugh test," according to the notes?

The Town had no sensible basis for its distinctions, such as prohibiting more than four directional signs while placing no limits on other types of signs, or restricting directional signs to 6 square feet while allowing other signs to be up to 20 square feet. The justification that directional signs "need to be smaller because they need to guide travelers along a route" was left a mystery.