Supreme Court hears Texas Billboard case today

Credit: Royalty image provided by Erik Mclean, @introspectivedsgn.

The ruling for the hearing could set a precedent for sign regulations.

Supreme Court justices’ today heard oral arguments about a First Amendment case that challenges Austin city billboard rules. 

The case before the court, City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, Inc., concerns legislation that bans digital billboards over the issue of billboards on commercial property vs on public streets and roads. The case also concerns general questions regarding free speech. 

In 2017, the two advertising companies Reagan National Advertising of Austin and Lamar Advantage Outdoor Company sued the city of Austin, Texas for denying 84 applications that would allow them to convert existing static billboards into digital billboards, billboards that display digital images changed by a computer every few seconds. 

The city denied the applications that billboards are ugly and distracting to drivers. 

Austin, Texas, is one of 350 cities and towns in Texas to enact bans on digital billboards along highways in 2014 as part of the Highway Beautification Act, which called for the removal of certain types of signs along the nation’s interstate highways, according to NPR. Austin also enacted bans on digital billboards to avoid distractions for highway drivers. 

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested during questioning that in this case digital billboards could disturb the Highway Beautification Act. 

Billboards have free speech rights? 

The issue presented before the court today addressed whether Austin’s city code distinction between on-premise signs, which would include businesses and other places of private property, and off-premise signs is unconstitutional in regards to a precedent set by the 2015 Supreme Court case Reed v. Town of Gilbert. 

The 2015 Supreme Court case held that the sign legislation restriction in Gilbert, Arizona violated the petitioners First Amendment rights. 

Jared Carter, associate director for the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, said most people typically do not think of billboards when it comes to free speech rights. He said that billboards can be used for political speech, advertisements, etc. and while it’s not someone speaking, that speech is protected under the First Amendment. 

The central questions from the Justices’ today focused on the distinction between content based speech and what they referred to as "content neutral" speech. Content-neutral speech regulation controls speech based on the form it takes, this also includes time, place and manner restrictions. Billboards could include restrictions on the size, shape or digital manner of signs. Content-based speech regulations restrict the specific kinds of messages on billboards. 

The Justices’ questions additionally focused on whether the digitization ban survives strict scrutiny––the highest standard of review that a law needs to meet in order to be passed. 

Carter said the question of the level of scrutiny in this case is “legally wonky.” 

“Really what it boils down to is how much flexibility is the Supreme Court going to give cities and towns when it comes to regulating billboards and signage within their communities,” Carter said. 

Carter said he thinks this case could clarify what the “rules of the road” are in signage law and pending on who wins, there could be major implications across the entire country.

The Court is expected to release the ruling for this hearing in the spring.