Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

Municipal Ban on Digital Billboards is Unconstitutional

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Sep 16, 2016 in Constitutional law, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Municipal land use, Supreme Court of New Jersey | 0 comments

E&J Equities v. Franklin Tp. Bd. of Adj. , 226 N.J. 549 (2016).  Billboards are not everyone’s favorite thing.  Many view them as a blot on the landscape (and not humorous at all, unlike the 1980’s British comedy “Blott on the Landscape“).  Here, after plaintiff had applied to the defendant Board for a variance allowing it to install a digital billboard on its land along I-287, Franklin Township adopted an ordinance that permitted “static” (conventional) billboards in the zone where plaintiff’s property was located, but banned digital billboards in the Township.  The stated bases for the digital billboard ban were aesthetics and public safety, since such billboards were more distracting to drivers than static billboards.  The Board then denied plaintiff’s variance application (actually, plaintiff got a 4-3 margin in its favor, but a supermajority was required in this circumstance, so the result was a denial).

Plaintiff brought suit, asserting violation of its free speech rights under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.  The Law Division agreed with plaintiff and invalidated the ordinance.  The Appellate Division reversed and upheld the ordinance as being based on legitimate public interests.  The Supreme Court granted review and reversed by a 5-0 vote.  In an opinion by Judge Cuff, the Court held that the record did not show sufficient governmental interests to justify a total ban on digital billboards.

Judge Cuff considered whether to apply the commercial speech standards of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), or the “Clark/Ward” (named for Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984), and Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)) time, place, and manner criteria for evaluating content-neutral regulations that affect speech.  She concluded that Clark/Ward was the appropriate measuring stick, since that test is designed for laws that affect both commercial and non-commercial speech, while Central Hudson applies only to commercial speech.  Plaintiff’s digital billboard was presented as being able to convey both commercial and non-commercial messages.

Clark/Ward looks at whether a regulation is content-neutral (this ordinance was, the Court found), whether it is “narrowly tailored to serve a recognized and identified government interest,” and whether there are reasonable alternative methods to convey the information that the regulation regulates.  Judge Cuff noted that the aesthetics and safety justifications advanced by the Board were recognized ones.  But the Board had to do more than just invoke them; the Board had to show “a modicum of support” for them in the record.  This the Board did not do.

The Court observed that static billboards are permitted, despite the aesthetics rationale.  Three such billboards can be erected in the zone, and in the part of the zone, where plaintiff’s property is situated.  “The record provides no basis to discern how three static billboards are more aesthetically palatable than a single digital billboard.”

The safety rationale did not stand up either.  Though Franklin had experienced more than double the number of accidents along I-287 as a neighboring town, that figure, standing alone, did not show that plaintiff’s digital billboard would exacerbate the situation.  The accident rate could have resulted from factors such as “weather, road design or road maintenance.”  The record was also “bereft” of any evidence of the safety impact of three static billboards.  Thus, though Judge Cuff was careful to note that a different record might have produced a different result, the record here called for the invalidation of Franklin’s digital billboard ban.

 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Kent Jordan Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress