Today the Supreme Court resumes its weekly oral arguments after a long winter’s nap. The court held a conference last week to consider a long list of cert petitions, so we should be hearing about some of those too.
The week’s argument highlight concerns free speech and religious liberty. This morning the court will hear Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona to decide whether the Town’s sign code unconstitutionally discriminates against church signs. At issue is a Town ordinance that comprehensively addresses signage within the town and differentiates between categories of signage based largely on content. The ordinance specifically limits the size and placement of directional signs for church services to a greater extent than political and other types of signs. The central legal question is to what extent the Town’s intent in passing the sign ordinance determines whether strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny applies.
Below, the Ninth Circuit decided that the Town’s ordinance was content-neutral and would receive intermediate scrutiny. Petitioners (represented by Alliance Defending Freedom) are arguing that strict scrutiny applies because the regulation discriminates heavily against religious speech by relegating it to the smallest, most temporary signs. The Town contends that the ordinance is viewpoint-neutral and intermediate scrutiny should apply because it isn’t actually trying to restrict religious expression.
For a free-speech/religious liberty case, the amicus practice in support of the Town is meager, with only one amicus filing in support. The U.S. Solicitor General agreed with the Town that intermediate scrutiny should apply to the claim, but split the baby and filed an amicus brief in support of Petitioners, arguing that the Town’s ordinance fails intermediate scrutiny.
In addition to Reed, there will also be cases about qui tam, the EEOC’s statutory duty to conciliate claims out of court, the nexus between drug paraphernalia crimes and immigration law, and bankruptcy law.