Supreme Court Holds Church May Put Up Temporary Signs To Announce Times And Places Of Its Services.

A town has a strict Sign Code, which permits ideological, political and a limited category of directional signs for “qualifying events.” A small, cash-strapped church and its pastor wished to advertise the time and location of their Sunday church services. Services are held in changing locations in or near the town. The church began placing 15 to 20 temporary signs announcing the times and locations of Sunday services. The signs were posted early on Saturday and removed around midday on Sunday. The town’s Sign Code compliance manager twice cited the church for violating the Sign Code, and promised to punish any future violations. The church filed an action in federal court alleging the Sign Code abridged their freedom of speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The federal trial court denied the church’s petition for a preliminary injunction, and the federal appeals court affirmed, holding the Sign Code did not regulate speech on the basis of content. When the case was sent back to the trial court, summary judgment was granted in favor of the town, and again the appeals court affirmed. When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the town offered two governmental interests: 1) preserving the town’s aesthetic appeal; and 2) traffic safety. The Supreme Court stated: “Because the Town’s Sign Code imposes content-based restrictions on speech, those provisions can stand only if they survive strict scrutiny, ‘which requires the Government to prove that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest,’” and concluded the town did not meet its burden. With regard to the town’s aesthetics argument, the high court said: “The Town cannot claim that placing strict limits on temporary directional signs is necessary to beautify the Town while at the same time allowing unlimited numbers of other types of signs that create the same problem,” and: “The Town similarly has offered no reason to believe that directional signs pose a greater threat to safety than do ideological or political signs. If anything, a sharply worded ideological sign seems more likely to distract a driver than a sign directing the public to a nearby church meeting.” (Reed v. Town of Gilbert (U.S. Sup. Ct.; June 18, 2015) ___U.S.___ [135 S.Ct. 2218, 192 L.Ed.2d 236].)