central radio co. inc. v. city of norfolk, no. 13-1996 (4th cir. jan. 29, 2016)

8/20/2019 Central Radio Co. Inc. v. City of Norfolk, No. 13-1996 (4th Cir. Jan. 29, 2016)

1/24

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 .

On Remand f r om t he Supreme Cour t of t he Uni t ed Stat es.( S. Ct . No. 14- 1201)

Ar gued: September 17, 2014 Deci ded: J anuar y 29, 2016

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

Appeal: 13-1996 Doc: 61 Filed: 01/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 24


2/24

2

Di smi ssed i n par t , af f i r med i n par t , r ever sed i n par t , andr emanded by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Keenan wr ot e t he opi ni on,i n whi ch J udge Gr egory and J udge Agee j oi ned.

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 .



3/24

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 enf or ced sel ect i vel y i n a di scr i mi nat or y

manner by zoni ng of f i ci al s.

Our r esol ut i on of t hi s appeal i s gui ded by t he Supr eme

Cour t ’ s r ecent deci si on i n Reed v. Town of Gi l ber t , 135 S. Ct .

2218 ( 2015) . Appl yi ng t he pr i nci pl es of cont ent neut r al i t y

ar t i cul at ed i n Reed, we hol d t hat t he si gn or di nance chal l enged

i n t he pl ai nt i f f s’ compl ai nt i s a cont ent - based r egul at i on t hat

does not sur vi ve st r i ct scr ut i ny. Accor di ngl y, we r ever se t he

di st r i ct cour t ’ s j udgment wi t h r espect t o t he pl ai nt i f f s’ Fi r st

Amendment chal l enge and remand t hat cl ai m t o t he di st r i ct cour t

t o awar d nomi nal damages t o the pl ai nt i f f s and f or consi der at i on

of ot her appr opr i at e r el i ef . However , we f i nd no mer i t i n t he

pl ai nt i f f s’ sel ecti ve enf or cement cl ai m, and we af f i r m t he

cour t ’ s di sposi t i on of t hat cl ai m.



4/24

4

Because t he Ci t y of Nor f ol k amended the si gn or di nance i n

Oct ober 2015 f ol l owi ng t he Cour t ’ s deci si on i n Reed, we al so

concl ude t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s’ r equest f or pr ospecti ve r el i ef

based on t he cont ent r est r i ct i ons i n t he pr i or or di nance i s

moot . On r emand, t he di st r i ct cour t may consi der whet her t he

pl ai nt i f f s may br i ng a new cl ai m chal l engi ng t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t he amended ordi nance and seek any

associ at ed i nj unct i ve r el i ef .

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 uded a chapt er gover ni ng t he pl acement and di spl ay of

si gns ( t he f ormer si gn code) . 1 See Nor f ol k, Va. , Code app. A

§ 16 ( 2012) . The Ci t y enact ed t he f or mer 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 “reduce 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 caused by the excessi ve number , si ze or hei ght ,

1 I n November 2014, t he Ci t y amended the f or mer si gn code t or emove t he code’ s exempt i on f or f l ags or embl ems of “r el i gi ousor gani zat i ons. ” See Nor f ol k, Va. , Or di nance 45, 769 § 1 & Ex. A( Nov. 25, 2014) . The Ci t y amended t he ordi nance agai n i nOct ober 2015, as we di scuss f ur t her bel ow. Unl ess other wi senot ed, al l ci t at i ons i n t hi s opi ni on ar e t o t he pr e- amendmentver si on of t he f or mer si gn code chal l enged i n t he pl ai nt i f f s’compl ai nt , see J . A. 231- 82.



5/24

5

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 f or mer si gn code appl i ed 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 pri vat e

common open space. ” I d. § 16- 2. However , as def i ned i n t he

ordi nance, t he t er m “si gn” di d not encompass 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 organi 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 wer e not subj ect t o r egul at i on

under t he f ormer si gn code.

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

t he f or mer si gn code gener al l y requi r ed 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 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 was 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 ed wi t h t he pr ovi si ons t hat appl i ed i n t he

zoni ng di st r i ct wher e t he si gn was t o 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 f or mer si gn code r est r i ct ed t he si ze of si gns. I d.

§ 16- 8. 3. The si ze r est r i ct i ons var i ed dependi ng on whet her a

si gn was cat egor i zed as a “t emporary si gn, ” whi ch was per mi t t ed



6/24

6

t o be as l ar ge as 60 squar e f eet , a “f r eest andi ng si gn, ” whi ch

was permi t t ed t o be as l arge as 75 square f eet , or an “ot her

t han f r eest andi ng si gn, ” whi ch was permi t t ed t o be as many

squar e 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 st r eet . 2 I d. The Ci t y di d not pat r ol i t s zoni ng

di str i ct s f or vi ol at i ons of s i ze restr i ct i ons or ot her

pr ovi si ons of t he f or mer si gn code, but di d 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.

2 Under t he f ormer si gn code, a “t emporary si gn” was “[ a]si gn or adver 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 bedi spl ayed and r emoved wi t hi n [ speci f i ed] t i me per i ods. ”Nor f ol k, Va. , Code app. A § 16- 3 ( 2012) . A “f r eest andi ng si gn”was “[ a] ny si gn pl aced upon or suppor t ed by t he gr oundi ndependent l y of any ot her st r uct ur e. ” I d. An “other t hanf r eest andi ng si gn, ” or “wal l si gn, ” as i t was col l oqui al l ydescr i bed by t he par t i es and by t he di st r i ct cour t , was “[ a]si gn f ast ened t o t he wal l of a bui l di ng or st r uct ur e i n such amanner t hat t he wal l becomes t he suppor t i ng st r uct ur e f or , orf or ms t he backgr ound sur f ace of , t he si gn or a si gn pai nt eddi r ectl y on t he wal l of t he st r uctur e. ” I d.



7/24

7

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



8/24

8

DOMAI N! ”3 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 . The

Ci t y of f i ci al di d not i dent i f y t he sour ce of t he compl ai nt t o

zoni ng of f i ci al s. 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

f or mer si gn code. At a l at er i nspect i 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 the f or mer 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 nstal l i ng t he si gn. 4

3 The Appendi x t o thi s Opi ni on cont ai ns a photogr aph of t hepl ai nt i f f s’ di spl ay.

4 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 f or mer si gn code. See Nor f ol k,Va. , Code app. A § 16- 8. 3( c) ( 2012) . However , when Ci t y zoni ngof f i ci al s r et ur ned t o t he Cent r al Radi o si t e l ess t han a weekl at er , t hey st at ed t hat Cent r al Radi o’ s banner coul d not exceed60 square f eet , a deter mi nat i on apparent l y based on t her est r i ct i ons gover 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 t he Ci t y requi r ed( Cont i nued)



9/24

9

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 t he f or mer si gn code. The

pl ai nt i f f s al l eged t hat t he f or mer 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.

Al t hough t hey cont ended t hat t he f ormer si gn code const i t ut ed a

cont ent - based r est r i cti on subj ect t o st r i ct scr ut i ny, t he

pl ai nt i f f s ar gued i n t he al t er nat i ve t hat t he f or mer si gn code

al so f ai l ed t o sat i sf y i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny. The pl ai nt i f f s

f ur t her al l eged t hat t he f or mer 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 ecti 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 ect i vel y appl i ed t he f or mer 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 ory rel i ef and nomi nal damages, t he

pl ai nt i f f s moved f or a tempor ar y rest r ai ni ng or der and a

pr el i mi nar y i nj uncti 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. I n doi ng so, t he cour t concl uded t hat t he

Cent r al Radi o t o r educe t he si ze of i t s banner t o 60 squar e f eetor l ess.



10/24

10

pr ovi si ons i n t he f ormer si gn code exempt i ng f l ags, embl ems, and

wor ks of ar t wer e cont ent - neut r al . Appl yi ng i nt er medi at e

scr ut i ny, t he cour t hel d t hat t he f or mer 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.

Fur t her , t he cour t hel d t hat t he chal l enged si gn or di nance

exempt i ons wer e r easonabl y rel at ed t o the 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

“are commonl y desi gned t o be aest het i cal l y pl easi ng. ” I n

r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, t he cour t al so r ej ect ed t he

pl ai nt i f f s’ pr i or r est r ai nt and sel ecti 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 . 5

We hear d argument and i ssued a deci si on consi st ent wi t h our

t hen- appl i cabl e case l aw, whi ch af f i r med t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s

j udgment . Cent r al Radi o pet i t i oned f or cer t i or ar i t o t he

Supr eme Cour t , whi ch gr ant ed t he pet i t i on, vacat ed our opi ni on,

5 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) .



11/24

11

and r emanded f or us t o reconsi der t he case i n l i ght of i t s J une

2015 deci si on i n Reed. Cent . Radi o Co. v. Ci t y of Nor f ol k, 776

F. 3d 229 ( 4t h Ci r . 2015) , vacat ed and r emanded, 135 S. Ct . 2893

( 2015) . We l at er r equest ed t hat t he par t i es f i l e suppl ement al

br i ef i ng on t hat i ssue.

Fol l owi ng t he par t i es’ suppl ement al br i ef i ng, t he Ci t y

f i l ed a mot i on suggest i ng t hat cer t ai n of t he pl ai nt i f f s’

r equest s f or r el i ef ar e now moot i n l i ght of t he Ci t y’ s deci si on

i n Oct ober 2015 t o amend t he f ormer si gn code t o compl y wi t h

Reed. The curr ent si gn code ( t he amended si gn code) no l onger

exempt s cer t ai n f l ags, embl ems, and wor ks of ar t f r om

r egul at i on, but does speci f y t hat wor ks of ar t and f l ags ar e

“exampl es of i t ems whi ch t ypi cal l y do not sat i sf y” t he code’ s

def i ni t i on of “si gn. ” See Nor f ol k, Va. , Or di nance 46, 108 Ex. A

§ 2- 3 ( Oct . 27, 2015) . The amended si gn code al so i mposes a

t i me l i mi t on t he Ci t y’ s deci si on t o i ssue or deny a si gn

cer t i f i cat e by deemi ng a r equest appr oved i f t he Ci t y has not

act ed wi t hi n a pr escr i bed per i od. I d. § 16- 10. 2( b) . The

pl ai nt i f f s oppose t he Ci t y’ s r equest t hat por t i ons of t he appeal

be di smi ssed as moot .



12/24

12

I I .

A.

The par t i es’ mai n ar guments on appeal concer n whether t he

f or mer si gn code was a cont ent - neut r al r est r i ct i on on speech

r evi ewed under i nt er medi at e scr ut i ny, or a cont ent - based

r est r i ct i on subj ect t o st r i ct scrut i ny. As we expl ai n bel ow, we

agr ee wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s t hat , under Reed, t he f or mer si gn code

was a cont ent - based r est r i ct i on t hat cannot wi t hst and st r i ct

scr ut i ny.

1.

We begi n by consi der i ng the Ci t y’ s cont ent i on t hat cer t ai n

of t he pl ai nt i f f s’ r equest s f or r el i ef ar e now moot because t he

amended si gn code does not excl ude f l ags, embl ems, and works of

ar t f r om t he def i ni t i on of “si gn. ” Under t he moot ness doct r i ne,

we do not have j ur i sdi ct i on over a case i f an act ual cont r over sy

does not exi st at t he t i me of appeal . See Br ooks v. Vassar , 462

F. 3d 341, 348 ( 4t h Ci r . 2006) . As rel evant her e, “[ w] hen a

l egi sl at ur e amends . . . a st at ut e, a case chal l engi ng t he pr i or

l aw can become moot even wher e re- enact ment of t he st at ut e at

i ssue i s wi t hi n t he power of t he l egi sl at ur e, ” so l ong as r e-

enact ment does not appear probabl e. I d. ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

The Ci t y appears t o concede t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s’ r equest

f or r et r ospect i ve r el i ef i n t he f or m of nomi nal damages, based



13/24

13

on an al l eged unconst i t ut i onal cont ent - based r est r i ct i on on

speech, i s not moot . We agr ee. See Covenant Medi a of S. C. , LLC

v. Ci t y of N. Char l est on, 493 F. 3d 421, 429 n. 4 ( 4t h Ci r . 2007)

( hol di ng t hat a pl ai nt i f f ’ s chal l enge t o a l at er - amended

ordi nance was not moot , because t he pl ai nt i f f sought nomi nal and

compensat or y damages) .

We concl ude, however , t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s’ r equest f or

pr ospect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef i s moot , because t he chal l enged

l anguage of t he f or mer si gn code exempt i ng cer t ai n f l ags,

embl ems, and wor ks of ar t f r om r egul at i on i s no l onger i n f or ce.

I n l i ght of t he Ci t y’ s submi ssi on t hat i t amended t he f or mer

si gn code t o compl y wi t h t he Cour t ’ s deci si on i n Reed, we are

conf i dent t hat t her e i s “l i t t l e l i kel i hood” that t he Ci t y wi l l

r e- enact t he pr i or ver si on of t he or di nance. Am. Legi on Post 7

of Dur ham, N. C. v. Ci t y of Dur ham, 239 F. 3d 601, 606 ( 4t h Ci r .

2001) . We t her ef or e di smi ss the por t i on of t hi s appeal r el at i ng

t o t he pl ai nt i f f s’ r equest f or pr ospecti ve r el i ef on t hi s cl ai m.

2.

We turn t o consi der whet her t he f ormer si gn code i mposed a

cont ent - neut r al or a cont ent - based r est r i ct i on on speech. I n

eval uat i ng t he cont ent neut r al i t y of a si gn r egul at i on

r est r i ct i ng speech, we f ocus on t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s deci si on i n

Reed v. Town of Gi l ber t , 135 S. Ct . 2218 ( 2015) . We r ecent l y

obser ved t hat t hi s deci si on conf l i ct ed wi t h, and t her ef or e



14/24

14

abr ogat ed, our Ci r cui t ’ s pr evi ous f or mul at i on f or anal yzi ng

cont ent neut r al i t y, i n whi ch we had hel d t hat “[ t ] he

gover nment ’ s pur pose i s t he cont r ol l i ng consi der at i on. ” Cahal y

v. LaRosa, 796 F. 3d 399, 405 ( 4t h Ci r . 2015) ( quot i ng

Cl at t er buck v. Ci t y of Char l ot t esvi l l e, 708 F. 3d 549, 555 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2013) ) ; see, e. g. , Cl at t er buck, 708 F. 3d at 556 ( descr i bi ng

t hat we appl i ed a “pr agmat i c r at her t han f or mal i st i c appr oach t o

eval uat i ng cont ent neut r al i t y” under whi ch a r egul at i on “i s onl y

cont ent - based i f i t di st i ngui shes cont ent wi t h a censor i al

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

As we expl ai ned i n Cahal y, t he Supreme Cour t i n Reed

r ej ect ed such an appr oach. I nst ead, t he Cour t hel d t hat at t he

f i r st st ep of t he cont ent neut r al i t y anal ysi s, t he gover nment ’ s

j ust i f i cat i on or pur pose i n enact i ng a si gn r egul at i on i s

i r r el evant . Cahal y, 796 F. 3d at 405. Accor di ngl y, under t he

hol di ng i n Reed, “[ g] over nment r egul at i on of speech i s cont ent

based i f a l aw appl i es t o par t i cul ar speech because of t he t opi c

di scussed or t he i dea or message expr essed. ” Reed, 135 S. Ct .

at 2227. Onl y when a r egul at i on does not expressl y dr aw

di st i nct i ons based on a si gn’ s communi cat i ve cont ent may we

exami ne, at t he second st ep of t he Reed anal ysi s, whet her t he

r egul at i on “cannot be ‘ j ust i f i ed wi t hout r ef er ence t o t he

cont ent of t he r egul at ed speech, ’ or . . . [ was] adopt ed by t he

gover nment ‘ because of di sagreement wi t h t he message [ t he



15/24

15

speech] conveys. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng War d v. Rock Agai nst Raci sm,

491 U. S. 781, 791 ( 1989) ) .

Al t hough we consi dered a si gn or di nance wi t h exempt i ons

si mi l ar t o t hose pr esent ed by t hi s appeal i n Br own v. Town of

Car y, 706 F. 3d 294 ( 4t h Ci r . 2013) , i n t hat case we appl i ed an

anal ysi s t hat i s no l onger val i d due t o t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s

deci si on i n Reed. I ndeed, t he panel i n Br own was bound by our

ear l i er pr ecedent , t her eby movi ng di r ect l y t o t he second st ep of

t he Reed anal ysi s. See i d. at 304- 05 ( det er mi ni ng t hat

exempt i ons f or “publ i c ar t ” and gover nment al or r el i gi ous

“hol i day decorat i ons” wer e r easonabl y rel ated t o government

i nt er est s i n t r af f i c saf et y and aest het i cs, j ust i f yi ng

appl i cat i on of i nt er medi at e scrut i ny) .

Now i nf ormed by t he Supr eme Cour t ’ s di r ect i ves i n Reed, we

begi n our anal ysi s by consi der i ng whet her t he Ci t y’ s f or mer si gn

code “appl i e[ d] t o par t i cul ar speech because of t he t opi c

di scussed or t he i dea or message expr essed. ” Reed, 135 S. Ct .

at 2227. Based on Reed, we hol d t hat t he Ci t y’ s r egul at i on was

a cont ent - based r est r i ct i on of speech. The f or mer si gn code

exempt ed government al or r el i gi ous f l ags and embl ems, but

appl i ed t o pr i vat e and secul ar f l ags and embl ems. I n addi t i on,

i t exempt ed “wor ks of ar t ” t hat “i n no way i dent i f [ i ed] or

speci f i cal l y r el at e[ d] t o a pr oduct or ser vi ce, ” but i t appl i ed

t o ar t t hat r ef er enced a pr oduct or ser vi ce. On i t s f ace, t he



16/24

16

f ormer si gn code was cont ent - based because i t appl i ed or di d not

appl y as a r esul t of cont ent , t hat i s, “t he t opi c di scussed or

t he i dea or message expr essed. ” I d. ; see al so Cahal y, 796 F. 3d

at 405 ( hol di ng Sout h Car ol i na’ s ant i - r obocal l st at ut e i s

cont ent - based r egul at i on because i t “appl i es t o cal l s wi t h a

consumer or pol i t i cal message but does not r each cal l s made f or

any ot her pur pose”) ; Sol ant i c, LLC v. Ci t y of Nept une Beach, 410

F. 3d 1250, 1264- 66 ( 11t h Ci r . 2005) ( appl yi ng t he same test

ar t i cul at ed i n Reed t o a ci t y si gn code, and hol di ng t hat an

exempt i on appl i cabl e t o “f l ags and i nsi gni a onl y of a

‘ gover nment , r el i gi ous, char i t abl e, f r at er nal , or ot her

organi zat i on’ ” was “pl ai nl y cont ent based” because “some t ypes

of si gns ar e ext ensi vel y r egul at ed whi l e ot her s ar e exempt f r om

r egul at i on based on t he nat ur e of t he messages t hey seek t o

convey”) .

3.

Because t he f ormer si gn code was a cont ent - based r egul at i on

of speech, we appl y st r i ct scrut i ny i n det er mi ni ng i t s

const i t ut i onal i t y. Reed, 135 S. Ct . at 2231. Under t hi s

st andard, t he government must show t hat t he r egul at i on

“f ur t her [ ed] a compel l i ng i nt er est and [ wa] s nar r owl y t ai l or ed

t o achi eve t hat i nt er est . ” I d. ( quot at i on omi t t ed) .

Wi t h r espect t o nar r ow t ai l or i ng, we requi r e t he gover nment

t o pr ove t hat no “l ess r est r i ct i ve al t er nat i ve” woul d ser ve i t s



17/24

17

pur pose. Uni t ed St at es v. Pl ayboy Ent m’ t Gr p. , I nc. , 529 U. S.

803, 813 ( 2000) . A r egul at i on i s unconst i t ut i onal l y

over i ncl usi ve i f i t “unnecessar i l y ci r cumscri b[ es] pr ot ect ed

expr essi on, ” Republ i can Par t y of Mi nn. v. Whi t e, 536 U. S. 765,

775 ( 2002) ( quot at i on omi t t ed) , and i s f at al l y under i ncl usi ve i f

i t “l eav[es] appr eci abl e damage to [ t he gover nment ’ s] i nt er est

unpr ohi bi t ed, ” Reed, 135 S. Ct . at 2232 ( quot at i on omi t t ed) .

The f or mer si gn code was enact ed t o promot e t he Ci t y’ s

“physi cal appear ance” and to “r educe the 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. ”

Al t hough i nt er est s i n aest het i cs and t r af f i c saf et y may be

“subst ant i al gover nment goal s, ” Met r omedi a, I nc. v. Ci t y of San

Di ego, 453 U. S. 490, 507- 08 ( 1981) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) , nei t her

we nor t he Supr eme Cour t have ever hel d that t hey const i t ut e

compel l i ng gover nment i nt er est s. See, e. g. , Nei ghbor hood

Ent er s. , I nc. v. Ci t y of St . Loui s, 644 F. 3d 728, 738 ( 8t h Ci r .

2011) ( st at i ng t hat i nt er est s i n aest het i cs and t r af f i c saf et y,

“whi l e si gni f i cant , have never been hel d t o be compel l i ng”) ;

McCormack v. Twp. of Cl i nt on, 872 F. Supp. 1320, 1325 n. 2

( D. N. J . 1994) ( not i ng t hat “whi l e cour t s cer t ai nl y have

r ecogni zed st at es’ and muni ci pal i t i es’ i nt er est s i n aest het i cs

and saf et y, no cour t has ever hel d t hat t hese i nt er est s f or m a

compel l i ng j ust i f i cat i on f or a cont ent - based r est r i cti on of

pol i t i cal speech”) . The Ci t y’ s pr of f er ed evi dence on t hi s poi nt



18/24

18

f el l f ar bel ow any t hr eshol d by whi ch a t r i er of f act coul d

concl ude t hat a compel l i ng gover nment i nt er est exi st ed. See

Di mmi t t v. Ci t y of Cl ear wat er , 985 F. 2d 1565, 1569- 70 ( 11t h Ci r .

1993) ( “The del et er i ous ef f ect of gr aphi c communi cat i on upon

vi sual aest het i cs and t r af f i c saf et y, subst ant i at ed her e onl y by

meager evi dence i n t he recor d, i s not a compel l i ng st at e

i nt er est of t he sor t r equi r ed t o j ust i f y cont ent based

r egul at i on of noncommer ci al speech. ”) .

Even i f we wer e t o assume, however , t hat t he Ci t y’ s

asser t ed i nt er est s pr ovi ded compel l i ng j ust i f i cat i on f or

cont ent - based r est r i ct i ons of speech, t he Ci t y has f ai l ed t o

show t hat i t s r est r i ct i ons wer e nar r owl y tai l or ed t o ser ve t hose

i nt er est s. I ndeed, j ust as i n Reed, t he Ci t y’ s exempt i ons f r om

t he f or mer s i gn code wer e “hopel essl y under i ncl usi ve. ” 135 S.

Ct . at 2231.

Wi t h r espect t o t he Ci t y’ s st at ed i nt er est i n pr eser vi ng

aest het i c appeal , f or exampl e, t he f l ag of a pr i vat e or secul ar

or gani zat i on was “no gr eat er an eyesore” t han t he f l ag of a

gover nment or r el i gi on, i d. ( quot i ng Ci t y of Ci nci nnat i v.

Di scover y Net wor k, I nc. , 507 U. S. 410, 425 ( 1993) ) , and wor ks of

ar t t hat r ef er enced a pr oduct or ser vi ce di d not necessari l y

det r act f r om t he Ci t y’ s physi cal appear ance any mor e t han ot her

wor ks of ar t . Yet , t he f or mer si gn code al l owed t he unl i mi t ed

pr ol i f er at i on of gover nment al and r el i gi ous f l ags, as wel l as



19/24

19

wor ks of ar t t hat met t he Ci t y’ s dubi ous cr i t er i on, whi l e

shar pl y rest r i ct i ng t he number and si ze of f l ags and ar t bear i ng

other messages. See Di mmi t t , 985 F. 2d at 1570 ( st at i ng t hat t he

asser t ed i nt er est s i n aest het i cs and t r af f i c saf et y “cl ear l y ar e

not served by t he di st i nct i on bet ween [ exempt ed] and ot her t ypes

of f l ags; t her ef or e, t he r egul at i on i s not ‘ nar r owl y dr awn’ t o

achi eve i t s asser t ed end”) .

The Ci t y al so has not shown t hat l i mi t i ng t he si ze and

number of pr i vat e and secul ar f l ags, as wel l as wor ks of ar t

t hat r ef er enced pr oduct s or servi ces, was necessar y t o el i mi nat e

t hr eat s t o t r af f i c saf et y. Ther e i s no evi dence i n t he r ecor d

t hat secul ar f l ags wer e any mor e di st r act i ng t han r el i gi ous

ones, or t hat a l ar ge wor k of ar t di spl ayi ng a r ef er ence t o a

pr oduct t hr eatened t he saf et y of motor i st s any more t han any

ot her l ar ge, exempt ed pi eces of ar t wor k.

Gi ven t he under i ncl usi veness of t he f or mer si gn code, t he

Ci t y has f ai l ed t o sat i sf y i t s bur den of pr ovi ng t hat i t s

r est r i ct i on of speech was nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o f ur t her a

compel l i ng gover nment i nt er est . Accor di ngl y, we concl ude t hat

t he f or mer si gn code f ai l s st r i ct scrut i ny, and t her ef or e was

unconst i t ut i onal under t he Fi r st Amendment . 6

6 Gi ven our concl usi on t hat t he f ormer si gn code wasunconst i t ut i onal , we need not r each t he pl ai nt i f f s’ al t er nat i veargument t hat t he f ormer si gn code’ s r equi r ement t hat a( Cont i nued)



20/24

20

B.

The pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he Ci t y sel ect i vel y

enf or ced t he f or mer si gn code i n vi ol at i on of t he Fi r st

Amendment and 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 unchal l enged. A

sel ecti 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 process “had a

di scr i mi nat or y ef f ect and t hat i t was mot i vat ed by a

di scr i mi nat or y pur pose. ” Wayte 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 t hat s i 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 f or mer 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 ’

cer t i f i cat e be obt ai ned bef or e di spl ayi ng a si gn, wi t houti mposi ng t i me l i mi t s or st andar ds on t he Ci t y’ s met hod f orgr ant i ng such cer t i f i cat es, const i t ut ed an i mper mi ssi bl e pr i orr est r ai nt on speech under t he Fi r st Amendment .

7 On appeal , t he Ci t y appears t o have conceded t hat i tdecl i ned t o enf or ce t he f or mer 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 hat“Cent r al Radi o f ai l ed t o show t hat t he deci si on t o f or ego( Cont i nued)



21/24

21

sel ect i ve enf or cement cl ai m was pr oper because t her 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 or s as

pr obat i ve i n det er mi ni ng di scri mi nat or y i nt ent , i ncl udi ng:

( 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 any

si 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 t he f or mer 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 r educe t he si ze of Cent r al

Radi o’ s s i 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 that 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

enf orcement was mot i vat ed by a desi r e t o f avor some part i cul armessage. ”



22/24

22

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 t he f or mer si gn code st r i ct l y, and t he Ci t y’ s

more 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.

I I I .

Fi nal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai n t hat t he amended si gn code

cont i nues t o i mpose an unconst i t ut i onal cont ent - based

r est r i ct i on on speech by l i st i ng gover nment al f l ags and wor ks of



23/24

23

ar t as exampl es of i t ems t hat t ypi cal l y wi l l not qual i f y as

si gns. We decl i ne t o consi der t hi s new chal l enge t o t he amended

si gn code i n t he f i r st i nst ance. We al so decl i ne t o consi der

t he pl ai nt i f f s’ ar gument t hat t he amended si gn code cont i nues t o

i mpose an unconst i t ut i onal pr i or r est r ai nt despi t e t he t i me

l i mi t s i ncl uded i n t he amended si gn code. On r emand, t he

di st r i ct cour t i s f r ee t o consi der any new cl ai ms or ar gument s

t he pl ai nt i f f s wi sh t o r ai se r el at ed t o t he amended si gn code,

as t he cour t deems appr opr i ate.

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we di smi ss t he appeal i n par t ,

and we af f i r m i n par t and r ever se i n par t t he di st r i ct cour t ’ s

j udgment . We r emand t he i ssue of nomi nal damages on Count Two

t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or a det er mi nat i on i n t he f i r st i nst ance.

DI SMI SSED I N PART, AFFI RMED I N PART,REVERSED I N PART, AND REMANDED



24/24

24

APPENDI X


central radio co. inc. v. city of norfolk, no. 13-1996 (4th cir. jan. 29, 2016)

Documents