In a July 11 ruling on GEFT Outdoor v City of Westfield the Indiana US Court of Appeals for the Seventh District remanded an out of home dispute back to a lower court to reconsider a verdict in light of Reagan v Austin.

Westfield, Indiana denied a request by GEFT Outdoor for a permit to construct a digital billboard.  GEFT sued on first amendment grounds and prevailed in District Court in part on the basis that the city’s on/off premise sign distinction was a regulating speech based on content.

The 7th District ruling says this about how Reagan v Austin influences the case: “City of Austin – which, of course, the district court did not have the benefit of at the time of its decision – makes plain that the City of Westfield’s off-premise ban does not (at least at the facial level) impose a content-based speech restriction requiring application of strict scrutiny.  Indeed, the Supreme Court altogether rejected the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning that a need to read requirement – one in which a City official must read a message displayed on a sign to answer whether the communication is on-premise or off-premises  – necessarily shows regulation based on the content of speech.”

Billboard Insider asked GETF Outdoor’s Jeff Lee to comment and he said this:  “Although it is unfortunate that GEFT needs to go back to the trial court in order for Judge Pratt to create an appropriate record for appellate review, we are nonetheless pleased with the 7th Circuit’s ruling and we believe the appellate court has telegraphed a clear path to victory for GEFT as we head back to trial court. At the end of the day a government entity that prohibits digital off-premises speech while at the same time enjoying a governmental monopoly of digital off-premises speech by allowing two digital billboards on City property is as egregious of an impermissible purpose as we can imagine.  As owner of GEFT Outdoor, I can you assure that in the near future this sign will be built.”

[wpforms id=”9787”]

Paid Advertisement