On Jan. 12, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 707 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2013), which upheld the constitutionality of an Arizona town’s sign ordinance.
The challenged ordinance imposed different size, quantity and duration regulations on various categories of temporary outdoor signs. Like many municipalities, the town of Gilbert, Arizona, enacted a sign ordinance regulating outdoor signs for three principal reasons: (1) to assure proper and efficient expression through visual communications involving signs compatible with the character and environment of the town; (2) to eliminate confusing, distracting and unsafe signs; and (3) to enhance the visual environment of the township. Fundamentally, Gilbert’s sign ordinance prohibits any person from erecting a sign in the town without first obtaining a sign permit. The sign ordinance does, however, expressly exempt from this permitting requirement certain sign types, including, in pertinent part, temporary directional, political and ideological signs.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
