Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, National Advertising Company challenged the City of Fort Lauderdale's sign code, which imposed a comprehensive ban on certain types of outdoor advertising, including billboards. National, having acquired leases for billboard locations, was denied permits under the existing sign code and subsequently filed a lawsuit in 1988, asserting that the code was unconstitutional and claiming vested rights to construct billboards. The City amended the sign code in 1988 to allow certain non-commercial displays, prompting the district court to dismiss the case as moot. National appealed, arguing that the amendments did not resolve the constitutional issues and that the original provisions could be reinstated. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the amendments did not moot the case as the City retained the authority to revert to the original language. The court emphasized that the case should be evaluated on its merits, focusing on potential First Amendment violations and the severability of unconstitutional provisions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the validity of the sign code and National's vested rights under Florida law.
Legal Issues Addressed
Content-Based Restrictions and Free Speechsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff claims that the sign code's exceptions are content-based, thereby favoring certain types of non-commercial speech over others, which constitutes a violation of free speech rights.
Reasoning: Second, National claims that the exceptions to the off-site advertising ban are content-based, favoring certain non-commercial speech over others.
First Amendment and Commercial Speechsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: National Advertising Company argues that the original sign code prioritizes commercial speech over non-commercial speech, which violates the First Amendment.
Reasoning: National identifies three constitutional issues with the original sign code. First, it argues the code unfairly prioritizes commercial speech by allowing outdoor commercial advertising while banning outdoor non-commercial advertising.
Mootness Doctrine in Constitutional Challengessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that amendments to the sign code did not render the case moot because the City could revert to the challenged provisions.
Reasoning: The City then moved to dismiss the case, asserting that the amendments rendered the claims moot. The district court agreed, dismissing the case on September 11, 1990. National contends that the amendments did not resolve the issues raised...
Severability of Unconstitutional Provisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court mandates the district court to assess the severability of unconstitutional provisions within the sign code upon remand.
Reasoning: On remand, the district court must assess whether the original sign code violates the First Amendment's free speech clause and whether any unconstitutional provisions are severable.
Vested Rights in Permit Applicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: National asserts vested rights based on its permit applications, arguing that these rights were unaffected by the sign code's amendments.
Reasoning: National asserts it has vested rights to construct billboards based on its permit applications with the City.