- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: First Amendment
- Date Filed: April 21, 2022
- Case #: 20–1029
- Judge(s)/Court Below: SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GORSUCH and BARRETT, JJ., joined.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner regulates signs (e.g., billboards) with different rules for references on-premises or off-premises content. Respondent sought a permit to digitize its off-premises sign, and when denied, sued Petitioner, alleging a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Petitioner removed to federal district court, which held the regulation was content neutral under Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S. 155 (2015). The court applied heightened scrutiny, siding with Petitioner. The Fifth Circuit Court reversed, reasoning that because an on/off premises distinction requires an evaluation of the sign’s message, it cannot be content neutral under Reed, and strict scrutiny must be applied. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that heightened scrutiny is used to evaluate regulations that lack impermissible underlying purposes or justifications, which examine the content of speech in order to “draw[] neutral, location-based lines." Reed, 576 at 163. Invalidated regulations which made distinctions for specific content-based categories, and prohibited “function or purpose” regulations which resulted in the same end. Unlike Reed, the regulations at issue here are “content agnostic” and only examine content of speech to make distinctions “similar to ordinary time, place, or manner restrictions.” Reading Reed to disapprove of all “function or purpose” evaluations would be to stretch its holding past breaking. REVERSED and REMANDED.