Tiny Arizona church wins Supreme Court case on signs

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that cities and towns generally cannot limit roadside signs based on what they say.

The justices unanimously said the town of Gilbert, Ariz., violated the First Amendment by giving signs promoting a church's worship services vastly inferior treatment compared to political campaign signs.

Writing for the court's majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the town law limiting the size of the church's signs and the length of time for which they could be displayed was a "content-based" restriction on the church's speech. He said the town had no justification for such a restriction, and it was therefore unconstitutional.

The case was touted by lawyers for Good News Community Church as a major test of religious freedom, but the justices didn't treat it that way. Rather, they said local governments must be able to justify the disparate treatment accorded organizations seeking to spread their messages.

The justices split, however, on how difficult it should be for governments to clear the bar. Thomas's majority opinion said they can do so only if the policy serves a compelling governmental interest, a standard that few laws can meet. Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg predicted that standard will bring a rash of lawsuits against more reasonable sign regulations.

While Kagan wrote that Gilbert's law did not pass even "the laugh test" because it lacked reasons for its signage distinctions, she warned that the new, higher standard needed to justify regulations could jeopardize even signs pointing the way to where George Washington slept.

"Our communities will find themselves in an unenviable bind," Kagan said. "They will have to either repeal the exemptions that allow for helpful signs on streets and sidewalks, or else lift their sign restrictions altogether and resign themselves to the resulting clutter."

Thomas, joined by five of the court's other justices, said courts must be skeptical of any law that limits speech based on its content, and that sign laws are no exception.

"Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship presented by a facially content-based statute," he wrote, adding that "future officials may one day wield such statutes to suppress disfavored speech."

The Arizona town restricts signs advertising upcoming events far more than political or ideological signs. Though political signs can be 32 square feet and remain up for five months, the town limits directional signs to 6 square feet and 13 hours.

The church, which relies on those signs to attract a few dozen worshipers, argued that the ordinance treats political speech as more valuable than religious speech.

"Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn't matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended," said David Cortman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which had advocated for the church.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a separate opinion, laid out a short guide to the types of sign laws that could still pass constitutional muster, including those limiting their size or the locations in which they can be displayed.

Despite that, lawyers for state and local governments said the court's decision was a major defeat. Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, said it "will upset many sign codes nationwide."