Not all signs are created equal. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld local regulations in Arizona restricting directional signs to more rigorous standards as compared to other forms of non-commercial speech.

As part of its overall regulatory code, the City of Gilbert, Arizona, enacted various sign regulations. The regulations generally require a City-issued sign permit unless the sign qualifies under one of 19 different exceptions. Three of the 1i exceptions involved:

     (1) Temporary directional signs for a qualifying event, 

     (2) Political signs and 

     (3) Ideological signs

Temporary directional signs subject to the exemption were subject to specific limitations not applicable to political and ideological signs including size, location (excluded from public right of way), and duration (same day only). A local church filed suit to invalidate the restrictions as applied to signs erected by the church, arguing that the City regulations constituted impermissible content regulation, violated equal protection rights, and interfered with freedom of religious practices protected under Arizona law. The district court rejected these arguments, as did the Ninth Circuit.

The case had a somewhat unique posture before the Ninth Circuit. The case had previously gone up on a denial of a request for a preliminary injunction. The resulting denial of the appeal by the Ninth Circuit had the effect of resolving a number of legal issues for the later cross motions for summary judgment filed in the district court. With respect to the cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the City and Good News appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Although the exercise of segregating sign types between directional, political and ideological involved some review of sign content, drawing such distinctions between general categories was acceptable in circumstances in which the ordinance was neutral as to signs within a particular category. Each exemption was based upon objective criteria and no distinction was based upon the individual sign content. The court then focused on whether or not the ordinance was "narrowly tailored" to serve a legitimate government interest. 

There was no dispute that the City's interests in aesthetics and safety were significant. The court went on to note that the same constitutional considerations in protecting political, religious and ideological speech did not apply to temporary directional signs, the effect of which was to subject an ordinance creating an exemption for directional signs to less judicial scrutiny as compared to more protected speech. On the evidence before the court, the court concluded that the regulations of temporary directional signs were reasonable. 

Turning to protections under Arizona's freedom of religion statute, the court also upheld the ordinance and regulations as it was neutral in character and was not a "substantial burden." The appellant's equal protection claims were also resolved in favor of the City. 

[CASE: ]

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2013, No. 11-15588) ___F.3d ___.