Justices appear to favour small Arizona church over sign law
The Supreme Court on Monday appeared likely to side with a small church in its fight with a Phoenix suburb over limits on roadside signs directing people to Sunday services.
Liberal and conservative justices alike expressed misgivings with the Gilbert, Arizona, sign ordinance because it places more restrictions on the churches' temporary signs than those erected by political candidates, real estate agents and others.
The Good News Community Church and Pastor Clyde
Reed sued over limits that Gilbert places on so-called directional signs, like the ones the church places around town to point people to its services in local schools and retirement communities.
The directional signs can be no larger than six square feet. They must be placed in public areas no more than 12 hours before an event and removed within an hour of its end. Signs for political candidates, by contrast, can be up to 32 square feet and can remain in place for
several months. Other ideological signs, including a message from a church welcoming people to its services without the pointing the way, can be as large as 20 square feet.
Justice Samuel Alito sarcastically described how the church could erect a larger, temporary sign telling passers-by about an upcoming service.
"We can't tell you where it is because the town won't let us," Alito said, to laughter. "But if you drive by here tomorrow morning, you'll see an arrow."
Less clear from the argument is whether the justices would use the case to make an important First Amendment ruling on the regulation of speech, or decide more narrowly in a way that affects the particular ordinance and not much else.
Lower federal courts upheld the town's sign ordinance because the distinction it draws between different kinds of temporary signs is not based on what a sign says.