Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Ackerley Communications against the City of Cambridge, challenging the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance regulating signs and billboards under the First Amendment. The primary legal issues pertain to distinctions between 'onsite' and 'offsite' signs and between commercial and noncommercial messages. Ackerley, which operates billboards that became nonconforming after the ordinance, argues that the ordinance's content-based restrictions necessitate strict scrutiny and fail to meet constitutional standards. The Massachusetts Zoning Act's grandfather protection applies only to onsite signs, excluding Ackerley's offsite billboards, leading to a requirement for their removal. Despite the city's aesthetic justification for the ordinance, the court finds it unconstitutional, citing impermissible content-based distinctions and the selective nature of message substitution provisions. The ordinance's severability clause is noted, but the court holds that Cambridge cannot enforce the removal of noncommercial signs based on state exclusion, reversing and remanding the decision for further proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Content-Based Restriction on Speechsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ordinance imposes a content-based restriction as the ability to maintain a sign is determined by its message, requiring strict scrutiny.
Reasoning: Most content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid and require strict scrutiny, which Cambridge acknowledges would apply to its ordinance.
Content Neutrality Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ordinance is criticized for being non-neutral as it selectively allows only certain speakers to use nonconforming signs for noncommercial messages.
Reasoning: The provision is criticized for potentially preserving only select noncommercial messages, which could undermine the variety of public discourse.
First Amendment Violation by Zoning Ordinancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The zoning ordinance's distinctions between 'onsite' and 'offsite' signs, and between commercial and noncommercial messages, are found to violate the First Amendment.
Reasoning: The court concludes that the First Amendment prohibits enforcement of the ordinance under the present circumstances.
Grandfather Protection under Massachusetts Zoning Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Only onsite signs benefit from grandfather protection, while offsite billboards, which Ackerley primarily operates, do not.
Reasoning: Consequently, only onsite signs can benefit from grandfathering under state law and local ordinance.
Severability Clause in Zoning Ordinancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ordinance's severability clause ensures that if any part is invalid, the remainder continues to be effective.
Reasoning: The conclusion reiterates that the Cambridge ordinance includes a severability clause, ensuring that if any part is deemed invalid, the remainder remains effective.