CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
NORTON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
VILLAGE OF ST. BERNARD, OHIO; GERALD L. STOKER,
Building Commissioner, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS,
Village of St. Bernard, Ohio,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 23-3623 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 20-cv-00350–Michael R. Barrett, District Judge; Stephanie K. Bowman, Magistrate Judge.
Argued: March 19, 2024
Decided and Filed: April 19, 2024
Before: BOGGS, MOORE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Like many municipalities, the Village of
St. Bernard (“Village”) regulates billboards and other signs displayed within the Village limits.
Norton Outdoor Advertising (“Norton”) has operated billboards within the Village for decades.
The Village recently revoked one of Norton’s permits, however, after Norton constructed two
variable-message signs. The relevant Village ordinance regulates signs based principally on
whether what is being advertised is located on or off the premises of the sign. Under controlling
Supreme Court precedent, this is a permissible, content-neutral means of regulation. But the
Village’s ordinance also has an exemption that functions beyond this on- and off-premises
dichotomy. And that exemption is content based. Accordingly, the Village ordinance must
satisfy strict scrutiny. Because the Village ordinance is not narrowly tailored to fulfill a
compelling interest, it cannot stand as written. The parties and the district court, however, have
yet to consider whether the unconstitutional provision is severable. Accordingly, we REVERSE
the district court’s judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
|