Summary
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed a First Amendment challenge to Atlanta's 1982 sign code, which was incorporated into the 2015 code for determining whether signs were lawfully nonconforming. The court held that the plaintiffs had standing only to challenge subsection 16-28.019(7), governing off-site signs, and that the provision was content-neutral under City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC. The court vacated the summary judgment and injunction and remanded for the district court to apply the appropriate intermediate-scrutiny analysis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the entire 1982 sign code or only section 16-28.019(7).
- Whether section 16-28.019(7), which regulates off-site or general advertising signs, is content-based under the First Amendment.
- Whether the district court properly entered summary judgment and an injunction without determining whether section 16-28.019(7) satisfies the constitutional standard applicable to content-neutral sign regulations.
Holdings
- The plaintiffs established standing only to challenge section 16-28.019(7), the provision relied on by the state superior court in determining that their signs were not lawfully nonconforming; they lacked standing to mount a facial challenge to the other provisions of the code.
- Section 16-28.019(7) is content-neutral on its face and as applied to the plaintiffs because it distinguishes between on-site and off-site signs based on the location of the advertised business or activity, not the substantive message.
- The district court erred by sustaining the facial challenge and entering summary judgment and an injunction without applying the constitutional standard governing content-neutral sign regulations to subsection (7).
Key quotations
“Instead, because the “substantive message itself is irrelevant to the application” of the sign code, it is content-neutral.” (9)
“Because “we are a court of review, not a court of first view,”” (10)
“We VACATE the summary judgment and injunction and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (10)
Factual background
Multimedia Technologies operated two signs beside Interstate 85 in Atlanta that had been permitted in 1993 and renewed between 2002 and 2008. Atlanta's 1982 sign code restricted general advertising, or off-site, signs near freeways and expressways, while the 2015 code allowed certain nonconforming signs to remain if they had been lawfully erected. After a Georgia superior court ruled that Multimedia's signs had been unlawful from inception, Atlanta ordered their removal and issued arrest citations, prompting the federal constitutional challenge.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued Atlanta for declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the 1982 sign code under the First Amendment. After reconsidering an earlier jurisdictional ruling, the district court sustained the plaintiffs' facial challenge, entered summary judgment for them, and issued an injunction. Atlanta appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment and injunction and remanded because the district court had not analyzed the relevant provision under the correct standard.
Remand instructions
Vacate the summary judgment and injunction and remand for the district court to consider in the first instance whether section 16-28.019(7) is constitutional under the standard applicable to content-neutral sign regulations.