9 F.3d 1290 (7th Cir. 1993), 93-1103, Harp Advertising Illinois, Inc. v. Village of Chicago Ridge, Ill.

• Docket Nº: 93-1103.
• Citation: 9 F.3d 1290
• Party Name: HARP ADVERTISING ILLINOIS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF CHICAGO RIDGE, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Case Date: November 19, 1993
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 1290

9 F.3d 1290 (7th Cir. 1993)

HARP ADVERTISING ILLINOIS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VILLAGE OF CHICAGO RIDGE, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93-1103.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

November 19, 1993

Argued Nov. 3, 1993.

Page 1291

Barbara J. Gosselar (argued), Kenneth T. Kubiesa, Kubiesa & Power, Westmont, IL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Edward M. Kay, James T. Ferrini, Sonia V. Odarczenko, Susan Condon (argued), Imelda Terrazino, Clausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, Chicago, IL, Robert B. Baal, Bryan J. O'Connor, Baal & O'Connor, Chicago, IL, for defendant-appellee.

Before FLAUM and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and WOOD, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Harp Advertising wants to erect a billboard in Chicago Ridge, Illinois. Portions of the village's zoning code got in the way; so did provisions of its sign code. Harp filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, contending that the ordinances violate the first amendment, applied to states (and villages) by the fourteenth. Magistrate Judge Lefkow recommended that the district court declare the sign code unconstitutional but sustain the zoning code; before the district court could act, Chicago Ridge repealed the challenged provisions of the sign code. The district judge then declared the challenge to the sign code moot and entered judgment for the village, 809 F.Supp. 1315, on Harp Advertising's challenge to the zoning code--a challenge depending on the theory that a ban on off-premises signs discriminates against non-commercial speech. See Messer v. Douglasville, 975 F.2d 1505 (11th Cir.1992) (holding that an ordinance restricting off-premises signs does not implicitly discriminate against particular subjects or viewpoints); Chicago Observer, Inc. v. Chicago, 929 F.2d 325, 328 (7th Cir.1991) (on-premises rule permissible because it "makes no exception for favored causes").

Repeal of an ordinance does not necessarily terminate the case or controversy. See Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 1074, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982), observing that "repeal of the objectionable language would not preclude [a city] from reenacting precisely the same provision if the District Court's judgment were vacated." See also Northeastern Florida Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 2301, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993). But Harp Advertising confronts a deeper problem. It lacks standing to challenge either the sign code or the zoning code, because it could not put up its sign even if it achieved total victory in this litigation. See Renne v. Geary, --- U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 111 S.Ct. 2331, 2337-38, 115 L.Ed.2d 288 (1991). Harp's proposed billboard would measure 20 by 60 feet. Yet village ordinance Sec. 4-5-10-3(A) provides that no sign may have a face exceeding 200 square feet. Harp does not contest the validity of this ordinance; its proposed billboard, six times as large as Chicago Ridge allows, therefore will never appear. This litigation is irrelevant. There might be a point to the case if Harp wanted to post a smaller sign in the event it could clear away the regulatory obstacles other than Sec. 4-5-10-3(A). But Harp did not make such a representation in the district court, and its lawyer refrained from doing so in this court despite an invitation during oral argument.

Harp believes that because it is waging a "facial" attack on the ordinances it need not show that a victory...