With the US Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral arguments November 10 in the billboard case from Austin, TX (City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising), There was a flurry of activity this week as multiple groups filed briefs with the court.

The issue: Reagan and Lamar Advertising sued Austin when the city denied permits for digital billboards, challenging the regulatory distinction between off-premise billboards and on-premise business signs.

Insider wanted to highlight a couple of items among this weeks filings:

Multiple think tanks and free-speech groups filed briefs supporting Reagan.

The amicus brief submitted September 29 by the Cato Institute is typical (Cato Institute supports individual liberty, free markets, and limited government):

“Austin’s sign code violates the First Amendment. It is unconstitutional under McCullen, Reed, and other precedents from this Court because it distinguishes between signs based on their content.”

The OAAA filed a brief focused on digital billboards and traffic safety, on behalf of the industry.

Several briefs supporting the City of Austin, submitted earlier, had claimed that digital billboards are unsafe and should create a basis for ruling in favor of the City of Austin. The OAAA wanted to provide additional information related to the regulation  and inherent safety of digital billboards.

“In actuality, digital billboards are extensively regulated by federal, state, and local governments and by the outdoor advertising industry itself to ensure their safe operation,” said a brief filed in the Supreme Court on September 29 by OAAA.

The industry’s brief was co-signed by Media Resources, Dakota Outdoor Advertising, DDI Media, Hughes Outdoor Media, and Renfroe Outdoor Advertising.

You can Click here to review the Supreme Court docket in the Austin case (which lists all the briefs).

[wpforms id=”9787″]

Paid Advertisement