485 U.S. 981 (1988), 87-1176, Don's Porta Signs, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, Fla.

Docket Nº:No. 87-1176
Citation:485 U.S. 981, 108 S.Ct. 1280, 99 L.Ed.2d 491
Party Name:DON'S PORTA SIGNS, INC., et al. v. CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA.
Case Date:March 28, 1988
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 981

485 U.S. 981 (1988)

108 S.Ct. 1280, 99 L.Ed.2d 491

DON'S PORTA SIGNS, INC., et al.

v.

CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA.

No. 87-1176

United States Supreme Court.

March 28, 1988

OPINION

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice WHITE, dissenting.

This case presents the question whether the standard of review articulated in Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984), applies to trial courts' findings of fact in cases striking down governmental restrictions on speech as contrary to the First Amendment.

The Federal District Court held in this case that a municipal regulation effectively banning portable signs violated the First Amendment. The court found that the regulation did not directly advance respondent's concededly substantial interest in esthetics and that this interest could be served equally well by less intrusive measures. See Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. 829 F.2d 1051 (1987). The appellate court interpreted our decision in Bose as mandating an independent examination of the whole record in all cases involving First Amendment claims. 829 F.2d, at 1053-1054, n. 9. Accordingly, the court concluded that it was not bound by the "clearly erroneous" standard in reviewing whether the regulation directly advanced respondent's esthetic goals and was more extensive than necessary. The Eleventh Circuit's view that an independent examination of the record must be undertaken when a trial court has found a First Amendment violation, as well as when a trial court has rejected a First Amendment claim, is shared by the Fifth [108 S.Ct. 1281] Circuit. See Lindsay v. San Antonio, 821 F.2d 1103, 1107 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1010, 108 S.Ct. 707, 98 L.Ed.2d 658 (1988).

Two other Circuits have concluded, however, that de novo review is required only where the trial court has rejected a First

Page 982

Amendment claim. See Daily Herald Co. v. Munro, 838 F.2d 380, 383 (CA9...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP