Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Description: Alliance Defending Freedom represents Pastor Clyde Reed and Good News Community Church, a small church located in Gilbert, Ariz. The church uses small, temporary signs to invite and direct the community to its services. The town of Gilbert's sign code imposes strict limits on the size, location, number, and duration of the church’s signs. It does not impose the same restrictions on political, ideological, and homeowners’ association signs. Read more >>
Supreme Court: Govt cannot judge speech based on how 'worthy' it is
Thursday, Jun 18, 2015
Video News Release (2015-06-18): Vimeo | YouTube
News Conference Video (2015-06-18): Vimeo
Additional Videos: Meet the Reeds | Meet the church | Meet the case
News Conference Video (2015-06-18): Vimeo
Additional Videos: Meet the Reeds | Meet the church | Meet the case
Attorney sound bites: David Cortman | Jeremy Tedesco
WASHINGTON – In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decisively affirmed Thursday that the government cannot play favorites when it comes to free speech. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent an Arizona church in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a case involving restrictions on temporary signs that provided the vehicle for the justices to reaffirm and clarify that the government cannot single out one form of speech over another based on how worthy the government thinks it is.
“The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling is a victory for everyone’s freedom of speech. Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman, who argued before the court in January. “It’s still government playing favorites, and that’s unconstitutional.”
“The government cannot target one form of speech with severe restrictions while allowing more speech for others in similar circumstances, which is what Gilbert’s ordinance did,” added ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Furthermore, the courts cannot use a test that allows that discrimination to happen.”
In its decision, the high court threw out a free speech test used by some courts that allowed the government to decide what speech is more valuable and thus entitled to greater protection under the First Amendment. The test improperly excused unlawful discrimination so long as the government said its motive was good. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit used that test to determine that Good News Community Church’s religious signs expressed far less valuable speech than what the town called “political” and “ideological” signs, thereby justifying the town’s stricter limits on the church’s signs.
The Supreme Court found that Gilbert’s temporary sign rules unconstitutionally discriminate against a particular kind of content and that the city did not have any legitimate governmental interest that required such discrimination.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained that “an innocuous justification cannot transform a facially content-based law into one that is content neutral…. 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. That is why the First Amendment expressly targets the operation of the laws—i.e., the ‘abridg[ement] of speech’—rather than merely the motives of those who enacted them.”
Under the ordinance the Supreme Court struck down, political signs can be up to 32 square feet, displayed for many months, and unlimited in number. An ideological sign can be up to 20 square feet, displayed indefinitely, and unlimited in number. The church’s signs and some other non-profit, event-related signs can only be six square feet, may be displayed for no more than 14 hours, and are limited to four per property.
WASHINGTON – In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decisively affirmed Thursday that the government cannot play favorites when it comes to free speech. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent an Arizona church in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a case involving restrictions on temporary signs that provided the vehicle for the justices to reaffirm and clarify that the government cannot single out one form of speech over another based on how worthy the government thinks it is.
“The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling is a victory for everyone’s freedom of speech. Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman, who argued before the court in January. “It’s still government playing favorites, and that’s unconstitutional.”
“The government cannot target one form of speech with severe restrictions while allowing more speech for others in similar circumstances, which is what Gilbert’s ordinance did,” added ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Furthermore, the courts cannot use a test that allows that discrimination to happen.”
In its decision, the high court threw out a free speech test used by some courts that allowed the government to decide what speech is more valuable and thus entitled to greater protection under the First Amendment. The test improperly excused unlawful discrimination so long as the government said its motive was good. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit used that test to determine that Good News Community Church’s religious signs expressed far less valuable speech than what the town called “political” and “ideological” signs, thereby justifying the town’s stricter limits on the church’s signs.
The Supreme Court found that Gilbert’s temporary sign rules unconstitutionally discriminate against a particular kind of content and that the city did not have any legitimate governmental interest that required such discrimination.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court explained that “an innocuous justification cannot transform a facially content-based law into one that is content neutral…. 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. That is why the First Amendment expressly targets the operation of the laws—i.e., the ‘abridg[ement] of speech’—rather than merely the motives of those who enacted them.”
Under the ordinance the Supreme Court struck down, political signs can be up to 32 square feet, displayed for many months, and unlimited in number. An ideological sign can be up to 20 square feet, displayed indefinitely, and unlimited in number. The church’s signs and some other non-profit, event-related signs can only be six square feet, may be displayed for no more than 14 hours, and are limited to four per property.
- Summary of and excerpts from U.S. Supreme Court opinion and concurrences: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
- Fact sheet: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
- Case snapshot: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
- Pronunciation guide: Tedesco (Tuh-DESS’-koh)
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
# # # | Ref. 11808
Commentary
Previous News Releases
Supreme Court issues unanimous victory for free speech
Thursday, Jun 18, 2015
ADF news conference if Supreme Court decides Gilbert case Thursday
Wednesday, Jun 17, 2015
ADF news conference if Supreme Court decides Gilbert case Monday
Friday, Jun 12, 2015
ADF news conference in Scottsdale when Supreme Court decides Gilbert case
Friday, Jun 5, 2015
ADF to defend free speech at US Supreme Court Monday
Friday, Jan 9, 2015
ADF to Supreme Court: Ariz. town's excuses for speech discrimination fall short
Monday, Dec 15, 2014
Broad support for overturning Ariz. town's targeted speech restrictions
Friday, Sep 26, 2014
ADF to US Supreme Court: End govt speech discrimination against churches
Tuesday, Sep 16, 2014
US Supreme Court agrees to take up govt speech discrimination against churches
Tuesday, Jul 1, 2014
ADF: Supreme Court should end govt speech discrimination against churches
Thursday, Mar 6, 2014
Supreme Court asked to stop gov't discrimination against church signs
Monday, Oct 21, 2013
Ariz. town: Church signs tightly regulated, political signs…well, not so much
Wednesday, Feb 27, 2013
Arizona town discriminates against church signs
Thursday, Aug 9, 2012
Legal Documents
U.S. Supreme Court oral argument audio and transcript: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
U.S. Supreme Court opinion: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Stipulated preliminary injunction order: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Amended complaint: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
9th Circuit opinion on preliminary injunction: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
9th Circuit panel decision and dissent: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Petition for review en banc: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Petition for writ of certiorari: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Reply brief filed with U.S. Supreme Court in support of granting writ of certiorari: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Chart comparing church, ideological, and political signs under Gilbert’s ordinance: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Petitioners' opening brief filed with U.S. Supreme Court: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Friend-of-the-court briefs filed with U.S. Supreme Court: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Petitioners' reply brief filed with U.S. Supreme Court: Reed v. Town of Gilbert
Related Resources
ABOUT David Cortman
David A. Cortman serves as senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom. He has been practicing law since 1996, and currently supervises a team of over 40 attorneys and legal staff who specialize in constitutional law, focusing on religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and family. Cortman has litigated hundreds of constitutional law cases including two victories at the U.S. Supreme Court. In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, he secured a 7-2 victory that overturned Missouri’s denial of a religious school’s participation in a state funding program. Cortman also argued Reed v. Town of Gilbert, securing a 9-0 ruling that prohibits the government from discriminating against religious speech. A member of the bar in Georgia, Florida, Arizona, and the District of Columbia, he is also admitted to practice in over two dozen federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Cortman obtained his J.D. magna cum laude from Regent University School of Law.