Reed, et al v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al, No. 11-15588 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseGood News appealed from the district court's determination on remand from the Ninth Circuit that the Town's ordinance restricting the size, duration, and location of temporary directional signs did not discriminate between different forms of noncommercial speech in an unconstitutional manner. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the court held that the ordinance was not a content-based regulation and was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. Accepting the court's opinion in Reed as law of the case, the court concluded that the Sign Code was constitutional because the different treatment of types of noncommercial temporary signs were not content-based as that term was defined in Reed, and the restrictions were tailored to serve significant government interests. Good News' other challenges did not merit relief. Further, the court determined that the amendments to the Sign Code made by the Town during the pendency of the appeal did not moot this case and that Good News could file a new action in the district court should it wish to challenge the new provisions of the Sign Code.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, on remand from the Ninth Circuit, in an action brought by Good News Community Church and its pastor alleging that the Town of Gilbert’s sign ordinance, which restricted the size, duration and location of temporary directional signs, was unconstitutional because it favored some noncommercial speech over other noncommercial speech. Accepting the prior opinion in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 587 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2009), as law of the case, the panel concluded that the sign ordinance was constitutional because the different treatment of types of noncommercial temporary signs was not content-based as that term was defined in Reed, and the restrictions were tailored to serve significant governmental interests. The panel also concluded that the ordinance did not violate Good News’ (or its members’) right to the free exercise of religion or right to equal protection of law, and was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. In addition, the panel determined that the amendments to the sign ordinance made by the Town of Gilbert during the pendency of the appeal did not moot the case and that Good News could file a new action in the district court should it wish to challenge the new provisions of the sign ordinance. Dissenting, Judge Watford agreed with the majority that the post-judgment amendments to the Town of Gilbert’s sign ordinance did not render this appeal moot. Judge Watford disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the sign ordinance was constitutional, and would hold that the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by drawing content-based distinctions among different categories of non-commercial speech.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.