First Amendment Cases Flashcards
Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
Communities can zone for location of adult entertainment establishments without necessarily violating the first amendment.
Upheld ord. that kept adult theaters 1,000 feet from other regulate uses.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. U.S. Supreme Court (1976).
Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. Court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs becasue it effectively banned noncommercial signs.
Partial ban on signs is unconstitutional - can’t prohibit off-premises displays.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)
Court upheld a LA ordinance that banned attaching signs to utilty poles. Court found tha than was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not reuglate on sign’s content. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling gov. interest. Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest.
Sign ordinance not unconstitutional because it applied to everyone equally.
Content neutral.
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984)
Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. Court found that restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. Ordinance was treating secondary effects (traffic and crime) on the basis of time, place, and manner - not the content (stripping).
Court found 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.
Prohibition upheld b SCOTUS becasue they were close to residential zone.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986).
Congressional act declaring no governmen may implement land use regulation in a maner tha timposes a substantial burden on the religious assembly or instituion 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.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) “RLUIPA”
U.S. Supreme Court found that a city cannot impost 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. Sign was for church services in an elementary school.
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert, Arizona (2014).
How could a planner regulate signs under the first amendment?
Conrol billboard luminance or message sequencing.
Cannot restrict most distracting signs/subjects.
