central radio co. inc. v. city of norfolk, no. 13-1996 (4th cir. jan. 13, 2015)

8/10/2019 Central Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk, No. 13-1996 (4th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015)

1/29

PUBLISHED

UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FOURTH CI RCUI T

No. 13-1996

CENTRAL RADI O COMPANY I NC; ROBERT WI LSON; KELLY DI CKI NSON,

Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ant s ,

v.

CI TY OF NORFOLK, VI RGI NI A,

Def endant - Appel l ee.

No. 13-1997

CENTRAL RADI O COMPANY I NC; ROBERT WI LSON; KELLY DI CKI NSON,

Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ees,

v.

CI TY OF NORFOLK, VI RGI NI A,

Def endant - Appel l ant .

Appeal s f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er nDi st r i ct of Vi r gi ni a, at Nor f ol k. Ar enda L. Wr i ght Al l en,Di st r i ct J udge. ( 2: 12- cv- 00247- AWA- DEM)

Ar gued: September 17, 2014 Deci ded: J anuar y 13, 2015

Bef ore GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Ci r cui t J udges.


2/29

2

Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Keenan wr ot e t he maj or i t yopi ni on, i n whi ch J udge Agee j oi ned. J udge Gr egory wr ote asepar at e di ssent i ng opi ni on.

ARGUED: Mi chael Eugene Bi ndas, I NSTI TUTE FOR J USTI CE, Bel l evue,Washi ngt on, f or Appel l ant s/ Cr oss- Appel l ees. Adam Dani el Mel i t a,CI TY ATTORNEY' S OFFI CE, Nor f ol k, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ee/ Cr oss-Appel l ant . ON BRIEF: Rober t P. Fr ommer , Er i ca Smi t h, I NSTI TUTEFOR J USTI CE, Ar l i ngt on, Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ant s/ Cr oss-Appel l ees. Mel vi n W. Ri nger , CI TY ATTORNEY' S OFFI CE, Nor f ol k,Vi r gi ni a, f or Appel l ee/ Cr oss- Appel l ant .


3/29

3

BARBARA MI LANO KEENAN, Ci r cui t J udge:

I n t hi s appeal , we consi der whet her t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n gr ant i ng summary j udgment t o t he Ci t y of Nor f ol k on

cl ai ms t hat t he Ci t y s si gn or di nance vi ol at ed t he pl ai nt i f f s

r i ght s under t he Fi r st Amendment and t he Equal Pr otect i on Cl ause

of t he Four t eent h Amendment . The pl ai nt i f f s, a r adi o

manuf act ur i ng and r epai r busi ness and t wo of i t s manager s,

asser t ed t hat t he si gn or di nance unconst i t ut i onal l y exempt ed

cer t ai n di spl ays f r om r egul at i on, ef f ectuat ed a pr i or r est r ai nt

on speech, and was sel ect i vel y enf or ced i n a di scr i mi nat or y

manner by zoni ng of f i ci al s. Upon our r evi ew, we agr ee wi t h t he

di st r i ct cour t t hat t he si gn or di nance i s a cont ent - neut r al

r est r i ct i on on speech t hat sat i sf i es i nt er medi at e scrut i ny, and

we f i nd no mer i t i n t he pl ai nt i f f s ot her const i t ut i onal

chal l enges. Ther ef or e, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t s j udgment .

I .

A.

The Ci t y of Nor f ol k ( t he Ci t y) adopt ed a zoni ng or di nance

t hat i ncl udes a chapt er gover ni ng t he pl acement and di spl ay of

si gns ( t he si gn code) . See Nor f ol k, Va. , Code app. A 16

( 2012) . The Ci t y enact ed t he si gn code f or sever al r easons,

i ncl udi ng t o enhance and pr ot ect t he physi cal appear ance of al l

ar eas of t he ci t y, and t o r educe t he di st r act i ons,


4/29

4

obst r uct i ons and hazar ds t o pedest r i an and aut o t r af f i c caused

by t he excessi ve number , si ze or hei ght , i nappr opr i at e t ypes of

i l l umi nat i on, i ndi scr i mi nat e pl acement or unsaf e const r uct i on of

si gns. I d. 16- 1.

The si gn code appl i es t o any si gn wi t hi n t he ci t y whi ch i s

vi si bl e f r om any st r eet , si dewal k or publ i c or pr i vat e common

open space. I d. 16- 2. However , as def i ned i n t he or di nance,

a si gn does not i ncl ude any f l ag or embl em of any nat i on,

or gani zat i on of nat i ons, st at e, ci t y, or any r el i gi ous

or gani zat i on, or any wor ks of ar t whi ch i n no way i dent i f y or

speci f i cal l y r el at e t o a pr oduct or ser vi ce. I d. 2- 3. Such

exempt ed di spl ays ar e not subj ect t o regul at i on under t he si gn

code.

Wi t h r espect t o si gns t hat ar e el i gi bl e f or r egul at i on, t he

si gn code gener al l y r equi r es t hat i ndi vi dual s appl y f or a si gn

cer t i f i cat e ver i f yi ng compl i ance wi t h t he si gn code. I d.

16- 5. 1, 16- 5. 3. Upon t he f i l i ng of such an appl i cat i on, t he

Ci t y i s r equi r ed t o i ssue a si gn cer t i f i cat e i f t he pr oposed

si gn compl i es wi t h t he pr ovi si ons t hat appl y i n t he zoni ng

di st r i ct wher e t he si gn wi l l be l ocat ed. I d. 16- 5. 4, 16- 8.

I n t he I - 1 i ndustr i al zoni ng di str i ct i n whi ch pl ai nt i f f

Cent r al Radi o Company I nc. s ( Cent r al Radi o) pr oper t y i s

l ocat ed, t he or di nance pr ovi si ons i ncl ude r est r i ct i ons on t he

si ze of si gns. I d. 16- 8. 3. The si ze r est r i cti ons var y


5/29

5

dependi ng on whether a si gn i s cat egor i zed as a t emporary

si gn, whi ch may be as l arge as 60 square f eet , a f r eest andi ng

si gn, whi ch may be as l arge as 75 square f eet , or an ot her

t han f r eest andi ng si gn, whi ch may be as many square f eet as t he

number of l i near f eet of bui l di ng f r ont age f aci ng a publ i c

street. 1 I d. The Ci t y does not pat r ol i t s zoni ng di st r i cts f or

vi ol at i ons of si ze r est r i cti ons or ot her pr ovi si ons of t he si gn

code, but does i nspect di spl ays i n r esponse t o compl ai nt s made

by member s of t he publ i c.

B.

The pl ai nt i f f s chal l enges t o t he Ci t y s si gn code r el at e

t o a pr ot est of cer t ai n adver se act i on t aken agai nst Cent r al

Radi o by t he Nor f ol k Redevel opment and Housi ng Aut hor i t y ( NRHA) .

The NRHA i s a char t er ed pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of Vi r gi ni a, and

consi st s of an i ndependent commi t t ee of seven member s appoi nted

by t he Nor f ol k Ci t y Counci l . See Va. Code Ann. 36- 4.

1 Under t he si gn code, a t empor ar y si gn i s [ a] si gn oradver t i si ng di spl ay const r uct ed of cl ot h, canvas, f abr i c, paper ,pl ywood or ot her l i ght mat er i al desi gned t o be di spl ayed andr emoved wi t hi n [ speci f i ed] t i me per i ods. Nor f ol k, Va. , Codeapp. A 16- 3 ( 2012) . A f r eest andi ng si gn i s [ a] ny si gnpl aced upon or suppor t ed by t he gr ound i ndependent l y of anyot her st r uct ur e. I d. An ot her t han f r eest andi ng si gn, orwal l si gn, as i t i s col l oqui al l y descri bed by t he par t i es andby t he di st r i ct cour t , i s [ a] si gn f ast ened t o t he wal l of abui l di ng or st r uct ur e i n such a manner t hat t he wal l becomes t hesuppor t i ng st r uct ur e f or , or f or ms t he backgr ound sur f ace of ,t he si gn or a si gn pai nt ed di r ect l y on t he wal l of t hestr uct ure. I d.


6/29

6

I n Apr i l 2010, t he NRHA i ni t i ated condemnat i on pr oceedi ngs

agai nst Cent r al Radi o and sever al ot her l andowner s, al l egedl y

i nt endi ng t o t ake and t r ansf er t he var i ous pr oper t i es t o Ol d

Domi ni on Uni ver si t y ( ODU) . Cent r al Radi o and t he other

l andowner s successf ul l y opposed t he t aki ng i n st at e cour t .

Al t hough a t r i al cour t i ni t i al l y r ul ed i n f avor of t he NRHA,

t hat r ul i ng was r eversed on appeal by t he Supr eme Cour t of

Vi r gi ni a. PKO Vent ur es, LLC v. Nor f ol k Redevel opment & Hous.

Aut h. , 747 S. E. 2d 826, 829- 30 (Va. 2013) ( hol di ng t hat t he NRHA

l acked t he st at ut or y aut hor i t y t o acqui r e non- bl i ght ed pr oper t y

by emi nent domai n) . Accor di ngl y, t he condemnat i on pr oceedi ng

agai nst Cent r al Radi o was di smi ssed. Nor f ol k Redevel opment &

Hous. Auth. v. Cent r al Radi o Co. , No. CL102965, 2014 WL 3672087

( Va. Ci r . Ct . Apr . 15, 2014) .

I n March 2012, whi l e t he appeal was pendi ng i n st ate cour t ,

Cent r al Radi o s managers pl aced a 375- square- f oot banner ( t he

banner ) on t he si de of Cent r al Radi o s bui l di ng f aci ng Hampt on

Boul evar d, a maj or , si x- l ane st at e hi ghway. The banner depi ct ed

an Amer i can f l ag, Cent r al Radi o s l ogo, a red ci r cl e wi t h a

sl ash across t he words Emi nent Domai n Abuse, and t he f ol l owi ng

message i n r ows of capi t al l et t ers: 50 YEARS ON THI S STREET /

78 YEARS I N NORFOLK / 100 WORKERS / THREATENED BY / EMI NENT


7/29

7

DOMAI N! 2 The pl ai nt i f f s i nt ended t hat t he banner be vi si bl e

f or several bl ocks al ong Hampton Boul evard and make a

st atement about Cent r al Radi o s f i ght wi t h t he NRHA, whi ch

woul d const i t ut e a shout r at her t han a whi sper .

An empl oyee of ODU compl ai ned about t he banner t o a Ci t y

of f i ci al , who not i f i ed t he Ci t y s zoni ng enf or cement st af f .

Af t er i nvest i gat i ng t he mat t er , a zoni ng of f i ci al i nf or med

Cent r al Radi o s manager s t hat t he banner vi ol at ed t he appl i cabl e

si ze r est r i cti ons set f or t h i n t he si gn code. At a l at er

i nspecti on, zoni ng of f i ci al s not ed t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s had

f ai l ed t o br i ng t he di spl ay i nt o compl i ance wi t h t he si gn code,

and ul t i mat el y i ssued Cent r al Radi o ci t at i ons f or di spl ayi ng an

over si zed si gn and f or f ai l i ng t o obt ai n a si gn cer t i f i cat e

bef or e i nst al l i ng t he si gn. 3

2 The Appendi x t o t hi s Opi ni on cont ai ns an i mage of t hepl ai nt i f f s di spl ay.

3 At t he t i me of t he f i r st vi s i t , a Ci t y zoni ng of f i ci alst ated t hat Cent r al Radi o s banner coul d not exceed 40 squaref eet , because t he bui l di ng wal l f aci ng Hampt on Boul evar d was 40f eet l ong. Thi s cal cul at i on appear ed t o t r eat Cent r al Radi o sbanner as an ot her t han f r eest andi ng si gn or wal l si gn undert he si ze r est r i ct i ons of t he si gn code. See Nor f ol k, Va. , Codeapp. A 16- 8. 3( c) ( 2012) . However , when Ci t y zoni ng of f i ci al sr et ur ned t o t he Cent r al Radi o si t e l ess t han a week l at er , t heyst ated t hat Cent r al Radi o s banner coul d not exceed 60 squaref eet , a det er mi nat i on appar ent l y based on t he r est r i ct i onsgover ni ng t empor ar y si gns. See i d. 16- 8. 3( a) . Ul t i mat el y,t he wr i t t en ci t at i on i ssued by the Ci t y requi r ed Cent r al Radi ot o r educe t he si ze of i t s banner t o 60 squar e f eet or l ess.


8/29

8

I n May 2012, t he pl ai nt i f f s i ni t i at ed a ci vi l acti on t o

enj oi n t he Ci t y f r om enf or ci ng i t s si gn code. The pl ai nt i f f s

al l eged t hat t he si gn code was unconst i t ut i onal because i t

subj ect ed t hei r di spl ay t o si ze and l ocat i on r est r i ct i ons, but

exempt ed cer t ai n f l ag[ s] or embl em[ s] and wor ks of ar t f r om

any si mi l ar l i mi t at i ons. The pl ai nt i f f s al so al l eged t hat t he

si gn code s pr ovi si on r equi r i ng t hem t o obt ai n a si gn

cer t i f i cat e bef or e er ect i ng a di spl ay ef f ect uat ed an

i mper mi ssi bl e pr i or r est r ai nt on speech, and t hat t he Ci t y

sel ecti vel y appl i ed t he si gn code t o t he pl ai nt i f f s di spl ay i n

a di scr i mi nat or y manner . I n addi t i on t o r equest i ng decl ar at or y

r el i ef and nomi nal damages, t he pl ai nt i f f s moved f or a t empor ar y

r est r ai ni ng or der and a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on.

The di st r i ct cour t deni ed t he pl ai nt i f f s mot i ons and,

af t er di scover y was compl eted, gr ant ed summary j udgment i n f avor

of t he Ci t y. The cour t concl uded t hat t he pr ovi si ons i n t he

si gn code exempt i ng f l ags, embl ems, and works of ar t were

cont ent - neut r al . Appl yi ng i nt er medi at e scrut i ny, t he cour t hel d

t hat t he si gn code was a const i t ut i onal exer ci se of t he Ci t y s

r egul at or y aut hor i t y. The cour t hel d t hat t hose exempt i ons wer e

r easonabl y r el at ed t o t he Ci t y s i nt er est s i n pr omot i ng t r af f i c

saf et y and aest het i cs, because such exempt ed di spl ays ar e l ess

l i kel y t o di st r act dr i ver s t han si gns and ar e commonl y

desi gned t o be aest het i cal l y pl easi ng. I n r eachi ng t hi s


9/29

9

concl usi on, t he cour t al so r ej ected t he pl ai nt i f f s pr i or

r est r ai nt and sel ect i ve enf or cement cl ai ms. Af t er t he cour t

ent er ed f i nal j udgment , t he pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed t hi s appeal . 4

I I .

The cor e component of t he pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge t o t he si gn

code i s t hei r ar gument t hat t he si gn code const i t ut es a cont ent -

based r est r i ct i on on speech, bot h f aci al l y and as appl i ed, t hat

cannot sur vi ve st r i ct scr ut i ny. We di sagr ee wi t h t hi s ar gument ,

and addr ess each component of t he pl ai nt i f f s const i t ut i onal

chal l enges i n t ur n.

A.

1.

I n eval uat i ng t he cont ent neut r al i t y of a muni ci pal si gn

or di nance, our pr i nci pal i nqui r y i s whet her t he gover nment

has adopt ed a r egul at i on of speech because of di sagr eement wi t h

t he message i t conveys. Hi l l v. Col orado, 530 U. S. 703, 719

4 We di sagr ee wi t h t he Ci t y s cont ent i on t hat t he di st r i ctcour t abused i t s di scret i on i n ext endi ng t he deadl i ne f or f i l i ngt he appeal af t er f i ndi ng t hat any negl ect by pl ai nt i f f s counselwas excusabl e. Cf . Thompson v. E. I . DuPont de Nemour s & Co. , 76F. 3d 530, 532 n. 2 ( 4t h Ci r . 1996) ( obser vi ng t hat t he deci si ont o gr ant an enl argement of t i me upon a showi ng of excusabl enegl ect r emai ns commi t t ed t o t he di scr et i on of t he di st r i ctcour t ) . The di st r i ct cour t di d not exceed i t s di scr et i on i nexcusi ng a br i ef del ay t hat di d not pr ej udi ce t he def endant orr esul t f r om any bad f ai t h on t he pl ai nt i f f s par t . See, e. g. ,Sal t s v. Epps, 676 F. 3d 468, 474- 75 ( 5t h Ci r . 2012) .


10/29

10

( 2000) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see War d v. Rock Agai nst Raci sm, 491

U. S. 781, 791 ( 1989) ( The government s pur pose i s t he

cont r ol l i ng consi der at i on. ) . We have descr i bed t hi s i nqui r y as

bei ng pract i cal i n natur e, and have noted t hat t he Supr eme

Cour t has r ej ect ed any f or mal i st i c appr oach t o eval uat i ng

cont ent neut r al i t y t hat l ooks onl y t o t he t er ms of a

r egul at i on. Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozar t , 680 F. 3d 359, 366

( 4t h Ci r . 2012) . Under our pr ecedent ,

[ a] r egul at i on i s not a cont ent - based r egul at i on ofspeech i f ( 1) t he r egul at i on i s not a r egul at i on ofspeech, but r at her a regul at i on of t he pl aces wher esome speech may occur ; ( 2) t he r egul at i on was notadopt ed because of di sagr eement wi t h t he message t hespeech conveys; or ( 3) t he gover nment s i nt er est s i nt he r egul at i on ar e unr el at ed t o t he cont ent of t heaf f ect ed speech.

Br own v. Town of Cary, 706 F. 3d 294, 302 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013)

( quot i ng Wag More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 366) .

We t her ef or e have observed t hat [ a] st atut e s

di f f er ent i at i on bet ween t ypes of speech does not i nexor abl y

por t end i t s cl assi f i cat i on as a cont ent - based r est r i ct i on. Wag

More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 366- 67; see al so i d. at 368 ( That

[ muni ci pal ] of f i ci al s must super f i ci al l y eval uat e a si gn s

cont ent t o det er mi ne t he ext ent of appl i cabl e r est r i ct i ons i s

not an augur of const i t ut i onal doom. ) . I nst ead, a di st i nct i on

i s onl y cont ent - based i f i t di st i ngui shes cont ent wi t h a


11/29

11

censor i al i nt ent t o val ue some f or ms of speech over ot her s t o

di st or t publ i c debat e, t o r est r i ct expr essi on because of i t s

message, i t s i deas, i t s subj ect mat t er , or t o pr ohi bi t t he

expr essi on of an i dea si mpl y because soci et y f i nds t he i dea

i t sel f of f ensi ve or di sagr eeabl e. Cl at t er buck v. Ci t y of

Char l ot t esvi l l e, 708 F. 3d 549, 556 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng

Br own, 706 F. 3d at 301- 02) ; see Covenant Medi a of S. C. , LLC v.

Ci t y of N. Char l est on, 493 F. 3d 421, 434 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007) ( not i ng

t hat a si gn or di nance may r equi r e[ ] l ooki ng gener al l y at what

t ype of message a si gn car r i es t o det ermi ne where i t can be

l ocat ed, so l ong as t he muni ci pal i t y does not undert ake a more

sear chi ng i nqui r y i nt o t he cont ent t hat woul d r egul at e t he

l ocat i on of di f f er ent t ypes of si gns based on t he i deas or vi ews

expr essed) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We

di scer n censor i al i nt ent by exami ni ng whet her t her e i s a

r el at i onshi p bet ween an or di nance s l egi sl at i ve pur pose and the

cont ent di st i nct i ons addr essed i n t he or di nance, Br own, 706 F. 3d

at 303, and by deci di ng whet her t he government s cont ent -

neut r al j ust i f i cat i on r easonabl y compor t s wi t h t he cont ent

di st i nct i on on t he f ace of t he r egul at i on. Cl at t er buck, 708

F. 3d at 556.

I n Br own v. Town of Cary, we revi ewed a chal l enge t o a si gn

or di nance t hat gener al l y subj ect ed r esi dent i al si gns t o cer t ai n

quant i t y and si ze r est r i ct i ons, but exempt ed f r om r egul at i on


12/29

12

hol i day decor at i ons er ect ed i n honor of gover nment al or

r el i gi ous hol i days and publ i c ar t i nt ended t o beaut i f y publ i c

ar eas. 706 F. 3d at 298. We hel d t hat t he muni ci pal i t y

demonst r ated a r easonabl e rel at i onshi p bet ween i t s exempt i ons

and i t s l egi t i mat e i nt er est s i n t r af f i c saf et y and aest het i cs,

concl udi ng t hat i t was r easonabl e t o pr esume t hat publ i c ar t

and hol i day decor at i ons enhance r at her t han har m aest het i c

appeal , and t hat seasonal hol i day di spl ays have a t emporary, and

t her ef or e l ess si gni f i cant , i mpact on t r af f i c saf et y. I d. at

304. Al t hough we acknowl edged t hat t he exempt ed di spl ays may

i mpl i cat e t r af f i c saf et y no l ess t han an or di nar y r esi dent i al

si gn, and may even i mpai r r at her t han pr omot e aest het i c

appeal , we cl ar i f i ed t hat t he cont ent neut r al i t y i nqui r y i s

whet her [ a par t i cul ar ordi nance s] exempt i ons have a reasonabl e,

not opt i mal , r el at i onshi p t o t hese asser t ed i nt er est s. I d. We

al so not ed t hat empi r i cal j udgment s r egar di ng t he pr eci se

r est r i ct i on necessar y t o car r y out l egi t i mat e l egi sl at i ve

i nt er est s ar e best l ef t t o l egi sl at i ve bodi es. I d. ( quot i ng

Randal l v. Sor r el l , 548 U. S. 230, 248 ( 2006) ( pl ur al i t y

opi ni on) ) .

The cont ent di st i nct i ons t hat we uphel d i n Br own r esembl e

t hose at i ssue i n t he pr esent case. The pl ai nt i f f s, however ,

at t empt t o di st i ngui sh the pr esent si gn code exempt i ons by

ar gui ng t hat t hey f aci al l y ar e unr el at ed t o l egi sl at i ve


13/29

13

i nt er est s i n aest het i cs or t r af f i c saf et y, wher eas t he

exempt i ons i n Br own expr essl y i nvol ved decorat i ons t hat wer e

not i nt ended t o be permanent i n nat ur e and ar t t hat was

i nt ended t o beaut i f y or pr ovi de aest het i c i nf l uences t o publ i c

ar eas. 706 F. 3d at 298.

The pl ai nt i f f s f ur t her char act er i ze t he Ci t y s si gn code

exempt i ons as bei ng t oo nar r ow, i n t hat t hey exempt t he f l ags

and embl ems onl y of gover nment al or r el i gi ous organi zat i ons, and

bei ng t oo br oad, i n t hat t hey exempt al l wor ks of ar t but do not

speci f i cal l y def i ne ar t . The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat because

pr i vat e or secul ar f l ags may have t he same ef f ect on aest het i cs

and t r af f i c saf et y as exempt ed di spl ays, and because cer t ai n

works of ar t may have a more det r i ment al ef f ect wi t h regard to

t hose pur poses t han di spl ays subj ect t o r egul at i on, t he

exempt i ons l ack a reasonabl e rel at i onshi p to any l egi t i mat e

i nt er est s and t hus ar e cont ent - based r est r i ct i ons on speech.

The pl ai nt i f f s anal ysi s f ai l s, however , because i n

det er mi ni ng t he l evel of scr ut i ny, we ar e not concer ned wi t h t he

pr eci se or opt i mal t ai l or i ng of exempt i ons t o a si gn

ordi nance, but t he ext ent t o whi ch t hey bear a r easonabl e

r el at i onshi p t o l egi t i mat e l egi sl at i ve pur poses. I d. at 304.

I ndeed, i n Br own, we agr eed t hat si mi l ar exempt i ons may i mpai r

l egi sl at i ve i nt er est s, but concl uded t hat t he si gn or di nance was

cont ent - neut r al because i t pl aced r easonabl e t i me, pl ace, and


14/29

14

manner r est r i ct i ons onl y on t he physi cal char act er i st i cs of

messages . . . exempt [ i ng] cer t ai n cat egor i es of si gns f r om

t hose r est r i cti ons sol el y on t he basi s of t he [ muni ci pal i t y s]

asser t ed and l egi t i mat e i nt er est s of t r af f i c saf et y and

aest het i cs. I d. at 304- 05.

We r each a si mi l ar concl usi on her e. The Ci t y gener al l y

al l ows s i gns r egar dl ess of t he message di spl ayed, and si mpl y

r est r i ct s t he t i me, pl ace, or manner of t hei r l ocat i on.

Exempt i ons t o t hose r est r i ct i ons may have an i nci dent al ef f ect

on some speaker s or messages, but such exempt i ons do not

conver t t he si gn code i nt o a cont ent - based r est r i ct i on on speech

when t he exempt i ons bear a r easonabl e rel at i onshi p t o t he

Ci t y s assert ed i nt erest s. Wag More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 368

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; Br own, 706 F. 3d at 304.

We concl ude t hat i t i s r easonabl e to pr esume that works of

ar t gener al l y enhance r at her t han har m aest het i c appeal ,

Br own, 706 F. 3d at 304, and we f i nd i t si mi l ar l y r easonabl e t o

concl ude that f l ags or embl ems gener al l y have a l ess s i gni f i cant

i mpact on t r af f i c saf et y t han ot her , mor e di st r act i ng di spl ays.

These exempt i ons do not di f f er ent i at e bet ween cont ent based on

t he i deas or vi ews expr essed. Covenant Medi a, 493 F. 3d at 434

( quot i ng Tur ner Br oad. Sys. , I nc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 643

( 1994) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . By exempt i ng t he

f l ags or embl ems of gover nment al or r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons f r om


15/29

15

r easonabl e si ze r est r i ct i ons, t he Ci t y has not i ndi cat ed any

pr ef er ence f or a par t i cul ar gover nment al or r el i gi ous speaker or

message, and t he si gn code exer t s onl y an i nci dent al ef f ect on

t he f l ags or embl ems of ot her or gani zat i ons. Wag More Dogs, 680

F. 3d at 368. Al so, by exempt i ng works of ar t t hat are non-

commer ci al i n char act er , t he Ci t y has not f avor ed cer t ai n

ar t i st i c messages over ot her s. Gi ven t he Ci t y s cl ear cont ent -

neut r al pur pose and t he absence of a mor e speci f i c i nqui r y i n

t he si gn code r egar di ng t he cont ent of t he r egul at ed si gns, we

concl ude t hat t he si gn code i s a cont ent - neut r al r egul at i on of

speech. See Covenant Medi a, 493 F. 3d at 434.

2.

Because the si gn code i s cont ent - neut r al , we eval uat e i t s

const i t ut i onal i t y under i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny. Br own, 706 F. 3d

at 305. Under t hi s l evel of def er ence, a cont ent - neut r al

r egul at i on i s val i d i f i t f ur t her s a subst ant i al gover nment

i nt er est , i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o f ur t her t hat i nt er est , and

l eaves open ampl e al t er nat i ve channel s of communi cat i on. I d.

( quot i ng Wag More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 369) ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

I ni t i al l y, we obser ve t hat t he si gn code was enact ed t o

pr omote t he Ci t y s physi cal appearance and t o r educe t he

di st r act i ons, obst r uct i ons and hazar ds t o pedest r i an and aut o

t r af f i c. Such concer ns f or aest het i cs and t r af f i c saf et y


16/29

16

undoubt edl y ar e subst ant i al gover nment i nt er est s. I d.

Mor eover , t he r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence t hat Cent r al Radi o s

banner af f ect ed t hose i nt er est s, 5 i ncl udi ng t est i mony t hat t he

banner was suf f i ci ent l y l ar ge t o be seen f r om a di st ance of

t hr ee ci t y bl ocks, and t hat passi ng mot or i st s r eact ed t o t he

banner by honk[ i ng] t hei r hor ns, yel l [ i ng] t hi ngs i n

suppor t , and wav[ i ng] . 6 See i d. ( not i ng t hat a mot or i st

beep[ i ng] hi s hor n i n r esponse t o t he pl ai nt i f f s si gn

5 The pl ai nt i f f s st at e t hat t he Ci t y i s obl i gat ed t opr of f er act ual , obj ect i ve evi dence t o suppor t t he si gn- codepr ovi si ons. We r ecent l y r ej ect ed, at t he mot i on t o di smi ssst age, t hi s l i t er al l y unpr ecedent ed ar gument , obser vi ng t hatwer e we t o accept t he pr oposi t i on, di smi ssal woul d ef f ect i vel ynever be appr opr i at e i n t he cont ext of a Fi r st Amendmentchal l enge, as t he i nqui r y st ar t s and st ops wi t h f act s al l eged i nt he pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt and gi ves t he gover nment nooppor t uni t y t o t est t he pl ausi bi l i t y of t he cl ai m by pr oduci ng

evi dence. Wag More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 365 n. 3. But we al sonot ed t hat t he evi dent i ar y bur den i s l i mi t ed i n t hat t he Ci t yneed not r ei nvent t he wheel by comi ng f orward wi t h vol umi nousevi dence j ust i f yi ng a r egul at i on of t he t ype t hat has beenuphel d sever al t i mes over . I d. We r ei t er at e t hat t he bur denon t he gover nment al def endant i n t hi s cont ext i s t hat ofest abl i shi ng t hat t he [ si gn code] passes const i t ut i onal must erunder t he r ubr i c of i nt er medi at e scrut i ny. I d.

6 The pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat [ e] xpr essi ons of suppor t ar enot evi dence of di st r act i on; t hey ar e evi dence of agr eement . We f ai l t o see how agr eement wi t h a message bear s on t he i ssuewhet her mot or i st s ar e di st r act ed by a si gn whi l e dr i vi ng. Theundi sput ed f act t hat passi ng mot or i st s r eact ed emphat i cal l y t oCent r al Radi o s banner , r egar dl ess whet her t hey pr i vat el y orpubl i cl y agr eed wi t h t he banner s message, const i t ut es evi dencet hat t he banner cont r i but ed t o t he di st r act i ons, obst r uct i onsand hazards t o pedest r i an and aut o t r af f i c t hat t he si gn codewas i nt ended t o r educe.


17/29

17

const i t ut ed evi dence of speci f i c t r af f i c pr obl ems r el at i ng t o

t he di spl ay) .

Next , we concl ude t hat t he si gn code i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed

because i t does not bur den subst ant i al l y more speech t han i s

necessary t o f ur t her t he gover nment s l egi t i mat e i nt er est s.

War d, 491 U. S. at 799. I nst ead, t he si gn code s si ze and

l ocat i on r est r i ct i ons demonst r at e t hat t he Ci t y has car ef ul l y

cal cul ated t he cost s and benef i t s associ at ed wi t h t he bur den on

speech . . . . Ci t y of Ci nci nnat i v. Di scover y Net wor k, I nc. ,

507 U. S. 410, 417 ( 1993) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Because such r est r i ct i ons do no more t han el i mi nate t he exact

sour ce of t he evi l [ t he or di nance] sought t o remedy, we ar e

sat i sf i ed t hat t he si gn code i s suf f i ci ent l y wel l - t ai l or ed t o

wi t hst and const i t ut i onal scr ut i ny. Br own, 706 F. 3d at 305

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Fi nal l y, unl i ke an out r i ght ban on speech, t he si gn code

l eaves open ampl e al t ernat i ve channel s of communi cat i on by

gener al l y per mi t t i ng t he di spl ay of si gns subj ect onl y t o si ze

and l ocat i on r est r i ct i ons. Wag More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 369

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Al t hough t he

pl ai nt i f f s ar gue that t her e ar e no reasonabl e al t er nat i ves f or

conveyi ng t he same message i n a way t hat can be seen f r om

Hampt on Boul evar d by t he t housands of peopl e who pass by

Cent r al Radi o s pr oper t y ever y day, t he pl ai nt i f f s do not have


18/29

18

a const i t ut i onal r i ght t o pl ace t hei r si gn i n t he l ocat i on and

manner t hat t hey deem most desi r abl e. See Ross v. Ear l y, 746

F. 3d 546, 559 ( 4t h Ci r . 2014) ( obser vi ng t hat [ t ] he Fi r st

Amendment af f ords no speci al pr ot ect i on t o a speaker s f avored

or most cost - ef f ect i ve mode of communi cat i on) ( ci t at i on and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Accor di ngl y, our i nqui r y

does not r i se or f al l on t he ef f i cacy of a si ngl e medi um of

expr essi on. I d.

I t i s undi sput ed her e t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s 375- squar e- f oot

banner woul d comport wi t h t he Ci t y s si gn code i f t he banner

were r educed t o a si ze of 60 square f eet . We r ecent l y have

deemed such an al t ernat i ve t o be adequat e upon compar abl e f act s.

See Wag Mor e Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 369 ( r easoni ng t hat a si gn

ordi nance l ef t open ampl e al t er nat i ve channel s of communi cat i on

because t he pl ai nt i f f was al l owed t o di spl ay a 60- squar e- f oot

ver si on of a 960- squar e- f oot pai nt i ng) . Accor di ngl y, because

t he Ci t y s cont ent - neut r al si gn code sat i sf i es i nt er medi at e

scr ut i ny bot h f aci al l y and as appl i ed t o t he pl ai nt i f f s

di spl ay, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s hol di ng t hat t he

si gn code sat i sf i es t he const i t ut i onal r equi r ement s of t he Fi r st

Amendment .

B.

The pl ai nt i f f s addi t i onal l y ar gue t hat t he Ci t y sel ect i vel y

enf or ced i t s si gn code i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st Amendment and


19/29

19

t he Equal Prot ect i on Cl ause of t he Four t eenth Amendment when t he

Ci t y i ssued t he ci t at i ons t o t he pl ai nt i f f s but al l owed

anal ogous di spl ays t o st and. A sel ect i ve enf or cement cl ai m of

t hi s nat ur e r equi r es a pl ai nt i f f t o demonst r at e t hat t he

gover nment s enf orcement pr ocess had a di scr i mi natory ef f ect

and t hat i t was mot i vat ed by a di scr i mi natory pur pose. Wayt e

v. Uni t ed St at es, 470 U. S. 598, 608 ( 1985) . Thus, a pl ai nt i f f

must show not onl y that si mi l ar l y si t uat ed i ndi vi dual s wer e

t r eat ed di f f er ent l y, but t hat t her e was cl ear and i nt ent i onal

di scr i mi nat i on. Syl vi a Dev. Cor p. v. Cal ver t Cnt y. , Md. , 48

F. 3d 810, 825 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ( ci t i ng Washi ngt on v. Davi s, 426

U. S. 229, 239 ( 1976) ) .

Even assumi ng, wi t hout deci di ng, t hat t he Ci t y s past

r ef usal t o enf or ce st r i ct l y t he si gn code const i t ut ed evi dence

of di scr i mi nat or y ef f ect, 7 di smi ssal of t he pl ai nt i f f s sel ect i ve

enf or cement cl ai m was pr oper because ther e was i nsuf f i ci ent

evi dence t hat t he Ci t y was mot i vat ed by a di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent .

We have r ecogni zed sever al f act ors as pr obat i ve i n det er mi ni ng

di scr i mi nat or y i nt ent , i ncl udi ng:

7 On appeal , t he Ci t y appears t o have conceded t hat i tdecl i ned t o enf or ce i t s si gn code agai nst t he over si zedel ect r oni c message boar d of a l ocal museum, but mai nt ai ns t hatCent r al Radi o f ai l ed t o show t hat t he deci si on t o f or egoenf orcement was mot i vat ed by a desi r e t o f avor some part i cul armessage.


20/29

20

( 1) evi dence of a consi st ent pat t er n of act i ons byt he deci si onmaki ng body di spar at el y i mpact i ng membersof a par t i cul ar c l ass of per sons; ( 2) hi stor i calbackgr ound of t he deci si on, whi ch may t ake i nt oaccount any hi st or y of di scr i mi nat i on by thedeci si onmaki ng body or t he j ur i sdi ct i on i t r epr esent s;( 3) t he speci f i c sequence of event s l eadi ng up t o thepar t i cul ar deci si on bei ng chal l enged, i ncl udi ng anysi gni f i cant depar t ur es f r om nor mal pr ocedur es; and ( 4)contempor ary st at ement s by deci si onmaker s on ther ecor d or i n mi nut es of t hei r meet i ngs.

Syl vi a Dev. , 48 F. 3d at 819 ( ci t i ng Vi l l . of Ar l i ngt on Hei ght s

v. Met r o. Hous. Dev. Cor p. , 429 U. S. 252, 266- 68 ( 1977) ) .

None of t hese f act or s wei ghs i n t he pl ai nt i f f s f avor .

Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s at t empt t o i mpugn t he Ci t y s mot i ves i n

enf or ci ng i t s si gn code agai nst t hei r banner pr ot est i ng t he use

of emi nent domai n by t he NRHA, t he recor d i s devoi d of evi dence

t hat t he Ci t y at t empt ed t o reduce t he si ze of Cent r al Radi o s

si gn because t he Ci t y di sagr eed wi t h Cent r al Radi o s message or

sought t o suppr ess a message t hat was cr i t i cal of t he NRHA, an

i ndependent ent i t y. Al so absent f r om t he r ecor d i s any

i ndi cat i on of si gni f i cant depar t ur es f r om nor mal pr ocedur es by

Ci t y zoni ng of f i ci al s, i d. , who r ecei ved a compl ai nt about a

si gn, conduct ed an i nvest i gat i on, consul t ed wi t h one anot her ,

and i ssued Cent r al Radi o a ver bal war ni ng f ol l owed by wr i t t en

ci t at i ons .

We agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t he Ci t y s past

f ai l ur e t o enf or ce i t s si gn code st r i ct l y, and t he Ci t y s mor e


21/29

21

zeal ous ef f or t s t o do so si nce t he commencement of t hi s

l i t i gat i on, ar e not suf f i ci ent t o subst ant i at e t he i nvi di ousl y

di scri mi nat or y i nt ent t hat i s r equi r ed of a sel ect i ve

enf or cement cl ai m. Syl vi a Dev. , 48 F. 3d at 819 ( ci t at i ons and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I nst ead, t he pl ai nt i f f s must

show t hat t he deci si onmaker . . . sel ect ed or r eaf f i r med a

par t i cul ar cour se of act i on at l east i n par t because of , not

mer el y i n spi t e of , i t s adver se ef f ect s upon an i dent i f i abl e

gr oup. I d. at 819 n. 2 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Such evi dence i s whol l y l acki ng i n t hi s case.

Accor di ngl y, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t s awar d of summar y

j udgment on t he pl ai nt i f f s sel ect i ve enf or cement cl ai m.

C.

Fi nal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he si gn code i s an

unconst i t ut i onal pr i or r est r ai nt on speech because i t r equi r ed

t hem t o obt ai n a si gn cer t i f i cat e evi denci ng compl i ance wi t h t he

si gn code, but f ai l ed t o i mpose t i me l i mi t s or adequat e

st andar ds on t he Ci t y s deci si onmaki ng pr ocess. We di sagr ee.

The Supr eme Cour t r equi r es procedural saf eguar ds f or

cer t ai n speech l i censi ng schemes, whi ch pr ot ect i ons i ncl ude t i me

l i mi t at i ons on t he deci si onmaki ng pr ocess. See Fr eedman v.

Mar yl and, 380 U. S. 51, 58- 60 ( 1965) ; 11126 Bal t . Bl vd. , I nc. v.

Pr i nce Geor ge s Cnt y. , Md. , 58 F. 3d 988, 997 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ( en

banc) . Those saf eguards, however , appl y onl y t o cont ent - based


22/29

22

subj ect - mat t er censor shi p, not t o cont ent - neut r al t i me,

pl ace, and manner r egul at i on. Thomas v. Chi . Par k Di st . , 534

U. S. 316, 322 ( 2002) .

Because we have hel d that t he Ci t y s s i gn code was cont ent -

neut r al , we f ur t her concl ude t hat t he si gn code was not r equi r ed

t o i mpose a const i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on of t i me l i mi t s on t he

deci si ons of zoni ng of f i ci al s. See Covenant Medi a, 493 F. 3d at

435. However , t hi s concl usi on does not necessar i l y end t he

i nqui r y, because a deci si onmaker cannot use t he absence of such

r equi r ement s t o st i f l e an i ndi vi dual s Fi r st Amendment r i ght s.

I d. ( ci t i ng Thomas, 534 U. S. at 323) .

Her e, t he pl ai nt i f f s do not al l ege t hat t he Ci t y i s

r esponsi bl e f or any undue del ay i n enf or ci ng t he si gn code. I n

f act , i t appear s t hat Ci t y zoni ng of f i ci al s i nf or med Cent r al

Radi o s manager s t hat t hei r si gn f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h t he si gn

code i mmedi atel y upon i nspect i ng Cent r al Radi o s pr oper t y, and

i ssued wr i t t en ci t at i ons l ess t han a week l at er when t he

of f i ci al s obser ved t hat t he si gn had not been modi f i ed or

r emoved despi t e t he warni ng.

The pl ai nt i f f s ar gue, never t hel ess , t hat t he Ci t y s si gn

code conf er s t oo much di scr et i on on t he zoni ng of f i ci al s who

pr ocess appl i cat i ons f or si gn cer t i f i cat es. Under t he Supr eme

Cour t s deci si on i n Thomas, a cont ent - neut r al l i censi ng

r egul at i on must cont ai n adequat e st andar ds t o gui de t he


23/29

23

of f i ci al s deci si on and r ender i t subj ect t o ef f ect i ve j udi ci al

r evi ew. Wag More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 372 ( quot i ng Thomas, 534

U. S. at 323) . Adequate st andards are t hose t hat channel t he

deci si on maker s di scret i on, f or ci ng i t t o f ocus on concret e

t opi cs t hat gener at e pal pabl e ef f ect s on t he sur r oundi ng

nei ghbor hood. I d. ( ci t at i on, br acket s, and i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) .

Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s acknowl edge t hat t he Ci t y s si gn

code does not pr ovi de of f i ci al s any di scr et i on t o deny a si gn

cer t i f i cat e when t he r equi si t e st andar ds ar e sat i sf i ed, t he

pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he st andar ds gover ni ng si ze r est r i ct i ons

and exempt i ons f or works of ar t ar e so vague and i ndetermi nat e

t hat t hey do not provi de any gui de f or of f i ci al deci si ons. We

di sagr ee wi t h t hi s argument .

The si gn code cl ear l y def i nes t he ci r cumst ances i n whi ch

si ze r est r i ct i ons appl y based on a si gn s cl assi f i cat i on as a

t empor ar y si gn, f r eest andi ng si gn, or ot her t han

f r eest andi ng si gn, see Nor f ol k, Va. , Code app. A 16- 3, 16-

8. 3 ( 2012) , and l i mi t s t he wor ks of ar t exempt i on t o di spl ays

whi ch i n no way i dent i f y or speci f i cal l y r el at e t o a pr oduct or

ser vi ce, i d. 2- 3. Al t hough ar bi t r ar i ness i n appl yi ng

r est r i ct i ons or exempt i ons woul d pose const i t ut i onal

di f f i cul t y, any such abuse must be addr essed i f and when a

pat t er n of unl awf ul f avor i t i sm appear s, r at her t han by i nsi st i ng


24/29

24

upon a degr ee of r i gi di t y t hat i s f ound i n f ew l egal

ar r angement s. Wag Mor e Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 373 ( quot i ng Thomas,

534 U. S. at 325) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The pl ai nt i f f s have f ai l ed t o show any such pat t er n of

unl awf ul f avor i t i sm. I d. Nor have t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gued t hat

t he si gn code f ai l s t o sat i sf y Thomas s r equi r ement t hat an

or di nance pr ovi de f or deci si ons subj ect t o ef f ecti ve j udi ci al

r evi ew, 534 U. S. at 323, per haps because t he pl ai nt i f f s had a

st at ut or y ri ght t o appeal t hei r ci t at i ons t o the boar d of zoni ng

appeal s, Va. Code Ann. 15. 2- 2311, and t o f i l e a pet i t i on f or

j udi ci al r evi ew of any f i nal deci si on by t hat body, i d. 15. 2-

2314. Cf . Wag More Dogs, 680 F. 3d at 373 ( not i ng t hat t he

exi st ence of an adequat e st at ut or y r evi ew pr ocess f or cer t ai n

zoni ng deci si ons sat i sf i ed t he second pr ong of t he Thomas

f or mul at i on) . Accor di ngl y, because t he Ci t y s si gn code

sat i sf i es t he st andar ds r equi r ed of cont ent - neut r al l i censi ng

r egul at i ons, we concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n

r ej ect i ng t he pl ai nt i f f s chal l enge t o t he si gn code as an

unconst i t ut i onal pr i or r est r ai nt on speech.

I I I .

For t hese r easons, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t s j udgment .

AFFI RMED


25/29

25

GREGORY, Ci r cui t J udge, di ssent i ng:

Cent r al Radi o chal l enges t he Ci t y of Nor f ol k s r est r i ct i ons

on i t s si gn pr ot est i ng t he sei zur e of i t s l and by emi nent domai n

a pr ot est t hat t he Vi r gi ni a Supr eme Cour t ul t i mat el y

vi ndi cat ed. See PKO Vent ur es, LLC v. Nor f ol k Redev. & Hous.

Aut h. , 747 S. E. 2d 826, 833 ( Va. 2013) . I wr i t e separ at el y t o

di ssent f r om Par t I I . A. 1 of t he maj or i t y opi ni on, as I do not

bel i eve our pr ecedent compel s appl i cat i on of a cont ent - neut r al

i nqui ry .

I woul d appl y a cont ent - based t est t o t he Ci t y s Si gn Code.

As t he maj or i t y opi ni on r ecogni zes, t hi s Cour t s so- cal l ed

pr act i cal i nqui r y i s meant t o det er mi ne i f t he gover nment s

r egul at i on i s j ust i f i ed wi t hout r ef er ence t o t he cont ent of

r egul at ed speech. Br own v. Town of Cary, 706 F. 3d 294, 303

( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Hi l l v. Col or ado, 530 U. S. 703, 720

( 2000) ) . As we st at ed i n Br own, t he l ack of any r el at i onshi p

bet ween a l aw s cont ent di st i nct i on and i t s l egi sl at i ve end i s

pr obat i ve of whet her t he government has di scr i mi nat ed on t he

basi s of cont ent . See 706 F. 3d at 303 ( ci t i ng Met r omedi a, I nc.

v. Ci t y of San Di ego, 453 U. S. 490, 513- 14 ( 1981) ( pl ur al i t y) ) .

I n a case l i ke t hi s, i nvol vi ng pol i t i cal speech agai nst t he

heavi est hand of gover nment at t empt i ng t o sei ze i t s ci t i zen s

l and, we must ensure a r easonabl e f i t bet ween t he Ci t y s

asser t ed i nt er est s i n aest het i cs and t r af f i c saf et y, and t he


26/29

26

Code s exempt i ons f or gover nment and rel i gi ous embl ems and

f l ags. I d.

I di sagr ee t hat t he Ci t y has demonst r at ed t hi s r easonabl e

f i t . Why i s i t t hat t he symbol s and t ext of a gover nment f l ag

do not af f ect aest het i cs or t r af f i c saf et y and escape

r egul at i on, wher eas a pi ct ur e of a f l ag does negat i vel y af f ect

t hese i nt er est s and must be subj ect ed t o si ze and l ocat i on

r est r i ct i ons? I see no r eason i n such a di st i ncti on. Thi s i s a

much di f f er ent case f r om t he exempt i ons we conf r ont ed i n Br own

f or t empor ar y hol i day decor at i ons and publ i c ar t . See 706 F. 3d

at 304- 05. Ther e, we t hought i t r easonabl e t o pr esume t hat

decor at i ons and ar t enhance aest het i c appeal , and t hat t he

seasonal nat ur e of hol i day di spl ays had a t empor ar y, and

t her ef or e l ess si gni f i cant , i mpact on t r af f i c saf et y. I d. at

304. Unl i ke i n our case, t he exempt i ons i n Br own coul d be

j ust i f i ed on t he basi s of aest het i cs and saf et y concer ns. I

f i nd no such j ust i f i cat i on her e, wher e t he Ci t y s r egul at or y

scheme per pet ual l y di sadvant ages di ssi dent s l i ke Cent r al Radi o.

The danger i s not t hat t he Ci t y has i ndi cat ed any pref er ence

f or a par t i cul ar gover nment al or r el i gi ous speaker or message,

Maj . Op. at 15, but t hat i t decl i nes t o r egul at e ent i r el y and

t her ef or e f avor s al l of f i ci al gover nment and r el i gi ous speaker s

and speech. For t hi s reason, t he exempt i ons shoul d be f orced t o

wi t hst and hei ght ened scr ut i ny under a cont ent - based t est .


27/29

27

Fur t her more, t he Ci t y has not adequatel y demonst r at ed that

i t s adopt i on of t he Code and i t s exempt i ons was unr el ated t o

di sagreement wi t h a par t i cul ar message. See Wag More Dogs, LLC

v. Cozart , 680 F. 3d 359, 368 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) ( [ D] i sagr eement

wi t h t he message [ speech] conveys . . . i s t he pr i nci pal i nqui r y

i n det er mi ni ng cont ent neut r al i t y. ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Al t hough t he Ci t y mai nt ai ns t hi s i s t he

case, i t r ef er ences onl y t he Pur pose St atement wi t hi n the Code

as support . I n Br own, we warned t hat t he mer e assert i on of a

cont ent - neut r al pur pose i s not enough t o save a l aw whi ch, on

i t s f ace, di scr i mi nat es based on cont ent . 706 F. 3d at 304

( quot i ng Tur ner Br oad. Sys. , I nc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 642- 43

( 1994) ) ; see al so i d. ( [ W] hen a gover nment suppl i es a cont ent -

neut ral j ust i f i cat i on f or t he regul at i on, t hat j ust i f i cat i on i s

not gi ven cont r ol l i ng wei ght wi t hout f ur t her i nqui r y. ) ( quot i ng

Whi t t on v. Ci t y of Gl adst one, 54 F. 3d 1400, 1406 ( 8t h Ci r .

1995) ) . Even i f a part y need not com[ e] f orward wi t h

vol umi nous evi dence j ust i f yi ng a regul at i on, Wag More Dogs, 680

F. 3d at 365 n. 3, sur el y i t must do somethi ng more t han si mpl y

poi nt t o a cont ent - neut r al j ust i f i cat i on wr i t t en i nt o t he l aw s

pr ef ace. At l east i n Br own, t he ci t y adequat el y document ed

t hat i t s l egi sl at i ve i nt er est s wer e unr el at ed t o t he or di nance s

cont ent di st i ncti ons t hr ough l egi sl at i ve f i ndi ngs, pol i cy


28/29

28

st at ement s, and t est i mony of Town of f i ci al s. Br own, 706 F. 3d at

305. I f i nd no such showi ng i n t hi s recor d. *

Thi s case i mpl i cat es some of t he most i mpor t ant val ues at

t he hear t of our democr acy: pol i t i cal speech chal l engi ng t he

gover nment s sei zur e of pr i vat e pr oper t y exact l y t he ki nd of

t aki ng t hat our Fi f t h Amendment pr ot ect s agai nst . I f a ci t i zen

cannot speak out agai nst t he ki ng t aki ng her l and, I f ear we

abandon a cor e pr ot ect i on of our Const i t ut i on s Fi r st Amendment .

Her e, Cent r al Radi o spoke out agai nst t he ki ng and won. I t may

be t hat t he Code passes t he hei ght ened scr ut i ny of a cont ent -

based i nqui r y. But t o st op shor t wi t hout subj ect i ng t he

r egul at i on t o a mor e r i gor ous exami nat i on does a di sservi ce t o

our cher i shed const i t ut i onal r i ght to f r eedom of speech. I

r espect f ul l y di ssent .

* I n f act , one of t he dr af t er s of t he Code r eveal ed i n hi sdeposi t i on: Why do we cr eat e exempt i ons f or government f l ags,i s t hat what you r e aski ng? Because I bel i eve we bel i eve t hat st he r i ght t hi ng t o do . . . I t hi nk we consi der t he i mpor t anceof an Amer i can f l ag or a st at e f l ag t o f ar exceed t hat of anent husi ast i c spor t s f l ag. J . A. 1012- 13.


29/29

APPENDI X

central radio co. inc. v. city of norfolk, no. 13-1996 (4th cir. jan. 13, 2015)

Documents