| Reed v. Town of Gilbert | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 12, 2015 Decided June 18, 2015 | |
| Full case name | Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al. |
| Docket no. | 13-502 |
| Citations | 576 U.S. 155 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2218; 192 L. Ed. 2d 236; 2015 U.S. LEXIS 4061; 83 U.S.L.W. 4444; 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 383 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 707 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2013) |
| Holding | |
| A municipal ordinance that placed stricter limitations on the size and placement of religious signs than other types of signs was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Alito, joined by Kennedy, Sotomayor |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in judgment) |
| Concurrence | Kagan (in judgment), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I, Gilbert, Ariz., Land Development Code (Sign Code or Code), ch. 1, §4.402 (2005) | |
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech.
Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town's sign ordinance imposed content-based restrictions that did not survive strict scrutiny because the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.[1] Justice Thomas also clarified that strict scrutiny should always be applied when a law is content-based on its face.[2] Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan both wrote opinions concurring in the judgment, in which they argued that content-based regulations should not always automatically trigger strict scrutiny.[3] Although some commentators praised the court's decision as a victory for "individual liberty",[4] other commentators criticized the Court's methodology.[5] Some analysts have also suggested that the case left open several important questions within First Amendment jurisprudence that may be re-litigated in future years.[6]
- ^ Reed v. Town of Gilbert, No. 13-502, 576 U.S. ___, slip op. at 15, 17 (2015).
- ^ Reed, slip op. at 8.
- ^ Reed, slip op. at 1 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment); Reed, slip op. at 3 (Kagan, J., concurring in judgment).
- ^ See, e.g., David A. Cortman, Supreme Court Decision Ensures Fair Playing Field In Marketplace of Ideas, JURIST (August 4, 2015).
- ^ See, e.g., Hadley Arkes, Victory in Spite of Ourselves, Library of Law & Liberty (June 20, 2015).
- ^ See, e.g., Steve Butler, The Importance of Bringing Your Sign Code Up-to-Date, Municipal Research and Services Center (October 29, 2015); Eugene Volokh, Supreme Court reaffirms broad prohibition on content-based speech restrictions, in today’s Reed v. Town of Gilbert decision, The Washington Post (June 18, 2015).