Gilbert wins court battle over sign law
By Connor Radnovich Cronkite News Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:06 PM
WASHINGTON -- A divided federal appellate court on Friday upheld a Gilbert sign ordinance, saying
it did not infringe on the First Amendment rights of Good News Presbyterian Church.
A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that town restrictions on the placement of
church signs were not based on the signs’ content and did not infringe on the church’s right to
free exercise of religion or its right to equal protection.
But in a dissenting opinion, Judge Paul Watford said the sign ordinance was unconstitutional,
saying that it favored political and ideological signs over signs promoting events, like those the
“Gilbert’s sign ordinance violates the First and 14th amendments by drawing content-based
distinctions among different categories of non-commercial speech,” Watford wrote.
An attorney for the church said he was reviewing the case and will decide soon whether to appeal.
The pastor of Good News said he was disappointed in the ruling.
“We thought we had a solid case, but the 9th Circuit said it wasn’t solid enough,” said the Rev.
Clyde Reed. “I guess we didn’t do a good enough job.”
The spat began in 2005 when town officials told the church of several dozen members that the signs
it was posting in public rights of way to advertise Sunday services were being put up too early.
The church reduced the number of signs and the amount of time the signs were in place, but friction
The church sued the city in 2008, claiming its rights under the First and 14th amendments were
violated by the town’s sign ordinance.
Kim S. Alvarado, one of the attorneys who represented Gilbert, said the town was surprised when the
suit was filed. She called Gilbert one of the few towns in the area with a sign ordinance that was
intended to help small organizations like the church advertise.
Alvarado said she does not know of any other complaints about the law, which the town changes
regularly based on community input. The law changed several times during the course of the case,
though that did not affect Friday’s ruling.
The code sets specific rules on how large a sign can be, and where and how long it can be
As “temporary directional signs,” the church’s signs could not exceed 6 square feet or be displayed
more than 12hours before or one hour after an event. But “ideological” signs could be up to 20
square feet and had no time restrictions.
The church argued that the town could not enforce the ordinance without first judging the content
of the sign.
Watford agreed, but the other two judges on the panel said the “restrictions are based on objective
factors relevant to the creation of the specific exemption and do not otherwise consider the
substance of a sign.” As such, the law is constitutional, they wrote.
This is not the first time the circuit court heard this case.
In 2009, it upheld a lower court’s decision rejecting the church’s request for an injunction to
block enforcement of the ordinance.
But the Appeals Court then sent the case back, with orders for the U.S. District Court to more
closely consider the First and 14th Amendment questions in the case. The District Court then ruled
that the law was content-neutral, a decision upheld in Friday’s ruling.
The church’s attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, said they have 14days to appeal for rehearing by the full
circuit court, “so you’ll know in 14days what we plan to do.”
“To us, it’s a very simple case of content-based discrimination,” said Tedesco, senior legal
counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. “Of course we’re disappointed the court did not see it