Module 1 Case Brief_ Ava Patton (2)

.docx

School

Arizona State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Law

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by AgentBraveryWren13

Report
Module 1 Case Brief: Reed v. Town of Gilbert What did the court decide and why? The signs belonging to the Church were seized by Gilbert town officials on the grounds of allegedly breaking the Town's Sign Code. The code placed stricter limitations on signage directing the public to nonprofit group meetings. The Town observed that the Church did not specify the date of the event on the temporary directional signs, and that it had displayed them beyond the authorized time limitations. Reed attempted to make accommodations by contacting the Sign Code Compliance Department, but his attempts were not successful. The petitioners claimed that the Code violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting their right to free speech. Background Facts The town of Gilbert, Arizona, the plaintiff in this case, has passed a law that specifies acceptable outdoor sign displays that does not violate the regulations of their code. The Sign Code categorizes the signs into different categories according to the kind of information they show. However, the Code does not apply to three forms of signage: ideological, political, and temporary guiding signs. The church and its pastor, Clyde Reed, petitioned to have temporary signs placed across the town to inform people about their services. The location, date, and name of the church were typically listed on the signs. Legal Issue Does the First Amendment interfere with a State Code that places limitations on the number, size, and placement of temporary directing signs? Legal Rule The First Amendment guarantees of free speech are violated by the Town's Sign Code, which places limitations on the type, size, and placement of temporary directing signs. The limits that pertain to a particular sign are solely determined by its communicative content, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. The Town has not demonstrated that imposing such restrictions is in the best interests of the government. Analysis The Church felt like it was within their rights through the First Amendment to put up signs that displayed information on when and where their services would be held. As a
result, the Town’s Sign Code imposes content-based restrictions on speech. Ultimately, the Sign Code is unconstitutional because, according to the Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U. S. 765, 780 (2002), a "law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order, and thus as justifying a restriction on truthful speech, when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited." Conclusion In conclusion, the Sign Code that treated signs differently based on their content had been ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court in a majority decision.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help