On June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015), finding an Arizona town’s sign ordinance that imposed inconsistent regulations on different types of temporary outdoor signs an unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech. The Supreme Court’s decision is significant because it has redefined for local municipalities the manner in which, and to what extent, they can regulate different categories of “visual speech” through zoning and other ordinances before infringing upon an individual or an entity’s First Amendment rights.
Like many municipalities, the town of Gilbert enacted a sign ordinance intended to prohibit confusing, distracting and unsafe signs within the town and to otherwise ensure that proposed signs are compatible with, and do not detract from, the town’s aesthetics.
This content has been archived.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]
