In January, a federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit that claimed the City of Madison’s sign and billboard ordinances are unconstitutional. It's the second of two recent decisions that represent big victories for local rights and common sense!
February 9, 2023 – There’s good news out of Wisconsin. In January, a federal appeals court rejected a lawsuit that claimed the City of Madison’s sign and billboard ordinances are unconstitutional. It was the second of two recent decisions that are big victories for local rights and common sense.
Adams Outdoor Advertising, which owns 90 signs in Madison and more throughout the state, has contended with the city over signage regulations for years. In April 2017, the company sought to change the height, add digital technology, and make other modifications to 26 of its Madison signs. In June 2017, the city’s zoning department denied 25 of the applications. In July 2017, Adams sued in federal court, citing First Amendment concerns.
In April 2020, a federal judge determined there was no constitutional problem with Madison’s ordinances. “Whether the Capitol Square should look like Times Square is a decision that Madison city government is entitled to make,” U.S. District Judge James Peterson said in his ruling. The company promptly appealed the decision.
On January 4, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, upheld the federal district court’s dismissal of Adams’ claims.
In her ruling, Chief Judge Diana Sykes of the 7th Circuit, a highly respected and influential conservative judge, wrote: “…Billboards by their very nature can be perceived as an esthetic harm. Likewise, the connection between billboards and traffic safety is too obvious to require empirical proof. It does not take a double-blind empirical study, or a linear regression analysis, to know that the presence of overhead signs and banners is bound to cause some drivers to slow down in order to read the sign before passing it.”
The Adams decision follows a related ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court made in April 2022. In City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, SCOTUS held that the City of Austin’s regulations – which differentiate between signs located at a business premise and billboards (those located off-site) – do not violate First Amendment rights. The city generally bans new off-premises signs and prohibits pre-existing off-premises signs from converting to digital.
In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS reversed a ruling in the matter by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit. In the majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the city ordinances are plainly content-agnostic and do not “single out any topic or subject matter for differential treatment.”
Scenic Utah, together with other scenic affiliates and viewshed protection advocates, applauds these judicial decisions. Allowing municipalities to use consistently applied, community-focused ordinances to control digital signage and other adverse signage impacts is huge victory, in Utah and across America.