First Amendment Cases

Question 1

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc

Answer 1

(1976)

The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.

Question 2

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego

Answer 2

(1981)
The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.

Question 3

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent

Answer 3

(1984) The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest.

Question 4

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc

Answer 4

(1986) The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment.

Question 5

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 5

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores (see below), Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The new act declares that no government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This act has been challenged in several legal cases, for example in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. the City of Chicago. In that case, the Court found that changes that the City made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA. This act was also challenged in Cutter v. Wilkinson, U.S. Supreme Court (2005), where the Court ruled that the Act is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Question 6

Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona

Answer 6

(2014)
The pastor of a church rented space in an elementary school and placed signs in the area announcing the time and location of the church services. Gilbert’s sign ordinance restricts the size, number, duration, and location of certain types of signs, including temporary signs. Gilbert advised the church that it had violated the sign code through the placement of the temporary signs. The church sued Gilbert claiming that the sign code violated the free speech clause in the First Amendment, as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The US Supreme Court found that the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content-neutral.