Reed v. Town of Gilbert (13-502)

argument 13-502

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the town’s sign code and how does it discriminate between political, ideological, and church signs?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We will hear argument uh first this morning in case thirteen five oh two, Reed versus Town of Gilbert. Mr. Cortman?

Unknown 0:11

Mr Chief Justice, it may have pleased the court. The town's code discriminates on its face by treating certain signs differently. Based solely on what they say. For example, political signs may be thirty two square feet, may be unlimited in number. and may be placed in the right away of the entire town for five months before the election. But the church's signs can only be one fifth of that side size, only placed in the dark of night uh the night before the church service. While the church's signs with directional content are only allowed up for fourteen hours, other signs with directional content are allowed up for much longer. For example, uh builders directional signs to uh home sales events are allowed up to be the enti are allowed up the entire weekend, and homeowners uh association event signs are allowed to be up for thirty days.

Elena Kagan 1:01

So what are when are you se seeking? Do you do you want uh whatever is the most favorable rule, say for ideological science, is that what you want? Or do you accept that there could be some limit? on event signs say some reasonable time limit.

Unknown 1:20

Uh we're we're seeking the same uh as the the the favorable signs, which in this case would be both ideological and political signs. And and the reason that I But

Elena Kagan 1:28

the ideological isn't time limiting.

Unknown 1:31

Well but it's not allowed on the right away. And so that's a major factor in this case because political signs uh are allowed on the right of way. And so the treatment that we're seeking is merely equal treatment under the First Amendment.

Elena Kagan 1:42

The same treatment as political signs and is that

Unknown 1:45

Th the same treatment as political signs that are allowed up in the right of way, that's right. And ideological signs, interestingly enough, um are still based into their own content category, uh but they're not allowed on the right of way, yet they are allowed up for an unlimited period of time.

Elena Kagan 1:59

Are you are you seeking unlimited placement?

Unknown 2:02

We are not. We are seeking the same placement uh that any other temporary signs get, which is the category that we're talking about. And in fact th the the city the town here uh has freedom to regulate uh the amount of time signs can go up, the size of the signs, the number of the signs. All our argument is is that they do it across the board and not treat signs differently based on their content.

John G. Roberts 2:22

Your your argument does not turn on the fact that it's a churches sign, does it? I mean you your argument would be the same if this was a temporary sign about where the soccer game was going to be.

Unknown 2:32

Well that's right. And and the church assign merely adds additional components to it. For example, uh the town puts our uh the church assigned into a category called uh directional signs. But yet the church assigned has religious speech on it, uh it has obviously directional speech, it has ideological speech, uh but that's correct, it's it's equal treatment for that type of sign.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:52

And and the category Can I ask about the category for political signs, which is the most favorable? Because all the time this court says That political speech is the most valued kind of speech. It's at the heart of the First Amendment. It gets special First Amendment protection. So in a way, why aren't is isn't isn't the locality here basically adopting the same kind of category based understanding of political speech and its special role in First Amendment analysis that this court has very frequently articulated. Uh but I think this court has also

Unknown 3:28

said, for example, uh that the religious speech always also uh handles that category of core speech under the First Amendment. And the problem is, is what the what the town does here, it's valuing speech, and I think that's one of the problems. It is saying that political speech in this case is more valuable than an invitation to church. And so I think this court has made clear that that the gospel.

John G. Roberts 3:48

I'm sorry, that was the p significance of my prior question. What what they're really saying is that political speech m is more valuable than speech about where the soccer game is.