Today's decision in Contest Promotions, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco looks like good news for municipalities and their constituents who support sign ordinances that promote the values of aesthetics and safety:
The plaintiff challenged the San Francisco
sign code on First Amendment grounds because "it exempts noncommercial signs for reasons unconnected to Defendant’s asserted interests in safety and aesthetics." But the court found the ordinance's regulation of commercial signs did promote the City's legitimate interests in safety and aesthetics. satisfying the constitutional standard of "intermediate scrutiny."
Though we've seen a lot of courts (including the
Ninth Circuit) set aside assertions of legislative intent as irrelevant in other contexts, in this case the court validated regulation of commercial signs specifically based on the ordinance's purpose statement:
"The text of (the ordinance) explains why such a rule is necessary. It explains that, when the ordinance was adopted, the 'increased size and number of general advertising signs' in particular were 'creating a public safety hazard,' that such signs 'contribute to blight and visual clutter as well as the commercialization of public spaces,' that there was a 'proliferation' of such signs in 'open spaces all over the City,' and that there was 'currently an ample supply of general advertising signs within the City.' These are statements of legislative purpose specific to commercial signs."
One takeaway for those interested in legislative drafting and statutory interpretation is that purpose statements in the body of a law are more likely to be given credence than statements taken from committee reports, meeting transcripts, or legal briefs.
The court also reaffirmed that the Supreme Court's 2015
Reed decision on
noncommercial signs didn't change the legal analysis regarding regulation of
commercial signs. Of course, if today’s decision is appealed, the Supreme Court itself will get a chance to weigh in on that.