City of Austin preserves government authority to restrict speech for reasons that do not relate to the underlying content of the message – so-called content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions. Some courts and commentators had cited Reed v. Town of Gilbert to narrow government authority to implement such restrictions. A consensus had emerged that Town of Gilbert outlaws regulations that require government officials to read the potentially subjected speech to determine whether the regulation applies.
This is how my constitutional law professor taught me to read Town of Gilbert, and the Fifth Circuit opinion reversed in City of Austin likewise took this approach. The Fifth Circuit's opinion reasoned that, because a government official must read a roadway sign to determine whether the sign is on-premise or off-premise, Austin's sign code drawing distinctions on that basis was an unlawful "content-based" restriction.
But the Court disagreed with that simplistic "read the sign" test, noting that Austin's sign code did not discriminate based on the underlying message of the sign. All messages within the on-premises category faced the same regulations, and all messages within the off-premises category faced the same regulations. The only reason the regulator had to read the underlying message at all was to determine whether the sign was on- or off-premises, not what the message itself said. In other words, City of Austin involved a place restriction, which is not usually suspect under the First Amendment. This is a far-cry from the sign code that violated the First Amendment in Town of Gilbert, which would've applied different regulations to signs depending on whether their messages were "ideological" or "commercial," among other categories.
Justice Alito concurred in the outcome. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissented, arguing that the Fifth Circuit correctly applied Town of Gilbert by holding that the on-vs-off premises distinction is unconstitutional.
City of Austin appears to credit the crux of Justice Breyer's Town of Gilbert concurrence. Breyer concurred in the outcome but refused to join the majority opinion in Town of Gilbert because he believed the simplistic "read the sign" test would eliminate too much government regulatory authority over subjects that do not involve serious First Amendment concerns like protecting political speech.
Moving forward, it appears the Court will respect broader authority to implement time, place, and manner restrictions.
Posts
