By Richard Hamlin, Hamlin Cody

Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed Constitutional claims against enforcement of a billboard ordinance.

Citizens for Free Speech rented land from Michael Shaw.  The purpose:  to display political messages on billboards.

Alameda County determined that the billboards violated the local zoning scheme and filed an abatement action.  Citizens sought an injunction to bar the County from enforcing its ordinance.  The trial court denied the injunction.  The County filed a new abatement action.  Citizens filed a new federal lawsuit, claiming violation of its constitutional rights.  The trial court dismissed the lawsuit and awarded costs and attorney fees to the County.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The ruling was a bit technical.  Rather than rule on the merits of the case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that it was proper for the federal courts to abstain from ruling.  Since it was a quasi-criminal enforcement action, and since California allows federal claims to be raised, there was no need for the federal courts to be involved.  A federal action would substantially delay an ongoing state proceeding involving an important state interest—a uniform procedure to resolve zoning disputes.

While the Ninth Circuit did not address the merits of the case, the result is the same as if it had.  The practical effect of the decision is to restrict the ability to challenge zoning enforcement decisions in federal court.

[wpforms id=”9787″]

Paid Advertisement