The Town of Gilbert, Arizona's (the Town) sign code regulated temporary signs and established restrictions based upon the category of sign, e.g., ideological signs, political signs, and temporary directional signs, etc. Good News Community Church (the Church) met weekly at different venues and placed temporary directional signs, which were installed every Saturday morning and removed on Sunday afternoon, to indicate where church services would be held that week. The Town's sign code required temporary directional signs be installed twelve hours prior to an event and removed one hour after an event. The Church was issued a citation for violating durational requirements and other portions of the Town's sign code. The Church filed suit, lost at both the trial and appellate court levels; then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. 

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Town's sign code violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution because the sign code's distinctive treatment of each category of temporary sign was "hopelessly underinclusive," i.e., the sign code placed strict limits on temporary directional signs under the rationale that it was necessary to protect aesthetics but allowed unlimited proliferation of other types of temporary signs which created the same problem. The Supreme Court stated that "restrictions in the Sign Code that apply to any given sign ... depend entirely on the communicative content" and applied the strict scrutiny standard to the (content based) portions of the Town's sign code, which imposed more stringent regulations on the Church's temporary directional signs than on other signs conveying other messages.

This opinion does not overrule any prior decision of the Supreme Court, but does indicate a need for local governments to evaluate their sign codes. Currently, many local governments regulate temporary signs based on the category of sign and impose these regulations to protect aesthetics. Regulation of noncommercial signs that involves categorization based upon the type of message, topic, or subject is now likely to trigger strict scrutiny analysis. Local governments are advised to review their sign codes and replace provisions that distinguish types of noncommercial signage based on the type of message, topic, or subject matter.

Justice Alito's concurrence is worth reviewing. It provides a non-comprehensive list of various categories of sign regulation that is still constitutional and "a few words of further explanation." If you have any questions related to the sign code that applies in your local government, do not hesitate to contact us.