Facts: Edward Salib owned a Winchell’s Donut House in Mesa, Arizona. Salib displayed large signs in his store window. The City ordered Salib to remove the signs as they violated the Sign Code which prohibited covering more than 30% of store’s windows with signs. Salib sued claiming the Sign Code violated his First Amendment rights to commercial speech. The trial court ruled in favor of Mesa, finding that the ordinance did not violate his 1st amendment rights to commercial speech and Salib appealed.
Using the IRAC method of case analysis, please analyze this case. First, please answer the questions below.
The case is now before a court of appeals. What is the issue in this case? (You must state the issue as a question. Then, you will answer that question in the conclusion).
What is the rule of law that the court of appeals will use to decide this case? (The rule is the legal principle(s) the court will use to answer the issue).
Next, read the Holding of the case below, then complete the exercise that follows.
Holding: The trial court ruling is affirmed. Commercial speech that concerns any unlawful activity or that which is false or misleading is not protected by the First Amendment. However, all other speech may be regulated if the government can satisfy a three-prong test. First, the government must show a substantial interest in support of the regulation. Both parties agree that aesthetics is such a substantial interest.
Second, the government must show that the challenged regulation advances that interest in a direct and material way. Here Salib argues that Mesa cannot satisfy this prong because they have conducted no studies proving what aesthetic or safety problem existed and how the Sign Code could solve such problems. Mesa claims that the Sign Code was passed in response to legitimate concerns of business owners that many businesses in the area had 100% window coverage and that detracted from the aesthetic of the city. Moreover, the city council received considerable input on sign coverage of windows before passing the Code. The constitution does not require studies to show that the city’s interests are being advanced by the regulation.
Lastly, Salib argues that the Sign Code is not narrowly tailored. However, narrowly tailored does not mean that the last restrictive means must be used to accomplish the City’s goals. A “reasonable fit” between the intent of the law and the means used to accomplish that intent is sufficient. Mesa claims that 30% is a reasonable compromise between 100% coverage and a total ban on signage. The court is not in a position to determine what percentage of coverage is the best solution, only that the 30% standard adopted by the City was reasonable in order to fulfill the goals of the Code.
Underline the text that illustrates the rule of law in this case.
Highlight the text that illustrates the court’s analysis of the case in a color of your choice.
What was the court’s conclusion in this case? (In the conclusion, you need to answer the question from your issue above. The conclusion contains information about who won the case and why they won the case. The conclusion often repeats some of what is written in the analysis portion of this exercise. REPEAT it in the conclusion. Your conclusion needs to contain the word “because” in it somewhere).