WASHINGTON — Towns cannot limit signs posted by nonprofit groups — like churches — giving people directions to their event differently than they treat political and ideological signs without a compelling reason, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
The Town of Gilbert, Arizona — which did so in limiting "temporary directional signs" posted by the Good News Community Church more than it would limit political candidates' signs — showed no compelling reason for the distinction.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Gilbert's treatment of such directional signs was unconstitutional.
In the Supreme Court's decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, he found that "[t]he Town's Sign Code is content based on its face." Under the First Amendment, content-based restrictions are only allowed if they advance a compelling state interest.
Although Gilbert officials claimed that they had not implemented the regulation to discriminate, the court shot that claim down, with Thomas writing, "Innocent motives do not eliminate the danger of censorship presented by a facially content-based statute, as future government officials may one day wield such statutes to suppress disfavored speech."
Gilbert, the court ruled, showed no compelling interest in treating signs like those posted by Good News Community Church differently, and it struck down the town's sign code.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, joined the opinion striking down the town's sign code — but believed the court did not need to reach the issue of whether strict scrutiny should be applied to challenges to such codes.
Kagan warned that Thursday's decision could result in the court becoming "a veritable Supreme Board of Sign Review."