Ackerley Communications of the Northwest Inc. v. Krochalis
Docket: No. 95-36211
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 6, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Seattle's regulation of billboards, specifically Municipal Ordinance 116780, limits the construction and relocation of billboards, asserting that this is necessary to address issues of visual blight, traffic hazards, and decreased property values. Ackerley Communications of the Northwest, Inc. appeals a summary judgment favoring the City, claiming the ordinance infringes on First Amendment rights by unduly restricting commercial speech. The district court found that the precedent set by Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego governs the case, and thus no trial was needed to evaluate whether the ordinance meets the Central Hudson test for commercial speech regulations. Ackerley argues that more recent Supreme Court rulings impose a higher burden on municipalities to demonstrate that such restrictions significantly advance their stated objectives, contending that the city failed to provide adequate factual support for the ordinance's effectiveness. Despite these arguments, the court affirmed the summary judgment, maintaining that it is bound by established Supreme Court authority.
The Supreme Court's decision in Metromedia addressed a First Amendment challenge to San Diego's ban on offsite billboards, aimed at improving traffic safety and city aesthetics. The Court applied the Central Hudson test, concluding that the first, second, and fourth criteria were met without significant dispute. It affirmed that the commercial advertising was neither unlawful nor misleading, and recognized traffic safety and aesthetic improvement as substantial governmental goals. The Court rejected the argument that the ordinance was overly broad, stating that prohibiting billboards was a direct and effective solution to perceived traffic hazards and aesthetic issues.
Regarding the third criterion, the Court dismissed Metromedia's claim about inadequate evidence linking billboards to traffic safety, affirming that the California Supreme Court had legally established a connection between billboard elimination and traffic safety. The Court upheld local legislative judgments that deemed billboards as traffic hazards, emphasizing deference to local authority in such matters. Similarly, the Court supported San Diego's stance that billboards inherently posed aesthetic harm, stating that while aesthetic judgments are subjective, there was no evidence of ulterior motives behind the city's regulation. Ultimately, the ordinance was found to directly advance substantial government interests, fulfilling the constitutional requirements of the Central Hudson test.
Seattle's ordinance regulating billboards is constitutionally valid and similar to San Diego’s ordinance, which Ackerley challenges based on claims that Metromedia is no longer applicable due to changes in the Court's handling of commercial speech. However, the Court has consistently upheld Metromedia's principles, reaffirming that a city's interest in reducing visual clutter justifies billboard restrictions, as seen in Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent. The Court emphasized that different communication methods have unique legal standards, and the law governing billboards remains significant. The precedent from Metromedia has not been overruled and thus governs current cases. Seattle's ordinance, aimed at aesthetics and safety, is a legitimate restriction on commercial speech, requiring no extensive proof of its effectiveness in advancing city interests. Ackerley's lawsuit against the new billboard ban followed a settlement in 1980 that involved removing some signs and granting relocation rights. The 1986 Sign Code further aims to enhance the visual environment, protect public safety, and allow businesses to identify themselves without excessive obstruction.
SMC 23.55.001, Addendum 2 establishes conditions under which off-premises advertising signs may be relocated or reconstructed. Such signs must have been lawfully erected, now be situated in zones where they are prohibited, and the relocation must comply with the Land Use Code, including maintaining sign size and moving to an area with equivalent or more intensive zoning. A construction permit for the relocated sign must be issued concurrently with the demolition permit for the existing sign. The ordinance also introduces new regulations regarding billboard spacing and requires annual reporting of billboard faces and their registration numbers.
The legal framework for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech is derived from Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, which outlines a four-part test for validity: the speech must concern lawful activity and be non-misleading; the restriction must serve a substantial governmental interest; it must directly advance that interest; and it must not be overly broad. The district court found that the billboard restrictions, while potentially affecting noncommercial speech, pass the test established in Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa, as they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant interest, and do not impair alternative communication channels.
Additionally, the court ruled in favor of Ackerley on certain claims related to Seattle Code provisions limiting on-premises signs to commercial messages, while dismissing other counts not under appeal. The plurality opinion in Metromedia affirmed that legislative findings on billboards contributing to traffic hazards and visual blight justified a total ban on offsite commercial billboards, with various justices dissenting on different grounds. Other cases cited illustrate the nuanced balance courts have struck between government interests and rights to commercial speech, with some bans being struck down for lack of evidence connecting the regulation to the desired outcomes.
