Narrative Opinion Summary
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reviewed the constitutionality of the Oregon Motorist Information Act (OMIA) of 1971, which restricts outdoor advertising with certain exceptions. The plaintiff, James Lombardo, challenged the OMIA on First Amendment grounds, arguing it unlawfully favors commercial speech and allows excessive governmental discretion in its variance provision. The district court previously dismissed his claims due to lack of standing, as Lombardo had not sought a variance. The Ninth Circuit certified questions to the Oregon Supreme Court, seeking clarification on the definition of 'good cause' within the OMIA and whether any time limits exist for variance decision-making. The appellate court deferred its ruling, awaiting the state court's interpretation and resolution of concurrent cases that could influence Lombardo's constitutional challenge. The order for certification reflects the court's preference to avoid constitutional determinations when state law clarification is pending. A dissenting opinion argued that the issues were speculative and underscored the plaintiff's lack of standing. The case remains unresolved, contingent on the Oregon Supreme Court's forthcoming rulings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certification to State Supreme Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Ninth Circuit certified questions to the Oregon Supreme Court to clarify the interpretation of 'good cause' under the OMIA and the existence of time limits for variance decisions.
Reasoning: The Ninth Circuit, adhering to the principle of avoiding constitutional questions when possible, is certifying questions to the Oregon Supreme Court for clarification on the interpretation of the OMIA.
First Amendment Rights and Content-Based Regulationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff argues that the OMIA's provisions constitute an unconstitutional content-based regulation by allowing certain types of signs while restricting others.
Reasoning: James Lombardo, the plaintiff, claims the OMIA violates his First Amendment rights by preventing him from displaying a sign reading 'For Peace in the Gulf.'
Judicial Avoidance of Constitutional Questionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court chose to defer ruling on constitutional issues pending clarification from the state supreme court and resolution of related cases.
Reasoning: The decision on this case is postponed until the Oregon Supreme Court responds to the certification order and issues a ruling on related cases involving Outdoor Media Dimensions.
Standing in Constitutional Challengessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court dismissed the plaintiff's claims due to lack of standing, as he did not apply for a variance under the OMIA.
Reasoning: The district court dismissed Lombardo's claims, concluding that the OMIA does not discriminate based on content and that Lombardo lacked standing since he had not applied for a variance.
Variance Provisions and Unbridled Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff contends that the OMIA's variance provision grants excessive discretion to state officials, constituting a prior restraint on speech.
Reasoning: Appellant Lombardo argues that the variance provision in statute 377.735(2) infringes on his First Amendment rights in two ways: it lacks a time limit for the Department to act on variance applications, referencing FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas; and it grants 'unbridled discretion' to government officials in determining what constitutes 'good cause.'