Contest Promotions, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-15909 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseContest Promotions filed suit challenging San Francisco's billboard prohibition, arguing that the distinction between commercial and noncommercial signs violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint, holding that the distinction drawn between commercial and noncommercial signs in Article 6 of the Planning Code survives intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). In this case, the distinctions directly advanced San Francisco's substantial interests in safety and aesthetics, and Article 6 was not constitutionally underinclusive.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging San Francisco’s sign-related regulations. Through its Planning Code, San Francisco prohibits new billboards but allows onsite business signs relating to activities undertaken on the premises, subject to various rules. Noncommercial signs are exempt from the rules. Plaintiff, an advertiser that rents the right to post signs on the premises of third-party businesses, alleged that the City’s Planning Code violates the First Amendment by exempting noncommercial signs from its regulatory ambit. The panel held that the distinction drawn between commercial and noncommercial signs in the City’s Planning Code survived intermediate scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). The panel held that the distinctions directly advanced the City’s substantial interests in safety and aesthetics and was not impermissibly underinclusive. CONTEST PROMOTIONS V. SAN FRANCISCO 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 23, 2017.
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.