Aiona v. Pai, 74-1469
| Decision Date | 13 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1469,74-1469 |
| Citation | 516 F.2d 892 |
| Parties | Darrow AIONA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George T. H. PAI, Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellant, Barry J. C. Chung, Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before CHAMBERS, ELY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
Denying a motion to convene a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, a single district judge issued an Order declaring Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 291C-77(c) (1973 Supp.) unconstitutional and enjoining the statute's enforcement. The Attorney General of Hawaii appeals.
The contested statute bans movable political campaign signs from sidewalks and other areas adjacent to highways. The statute's ban does not extend to signs containing other types of messages, e. g., commercial placards or signs carried by picketers in labor disputes. 1 We agree with the district judge's view that the statute is plainly and undeniably unconstitutional under the holding in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 33 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). Cf. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 94 S.Ct. 2714, 41 L.Ed.2d 770 (1974), in which the Court distinguished a city's decision to ban political advertisements from the city-owned transit system, which the Court approved, from a ban on political advertisements in traditional first amendment forums, such as public sidewalks and other thoroughfares.
Since the unconstitutionality of the statute here involved was settled beyond question by the Supreme Court's decision in Mosley, the district judge correctly determined that it was unnecessary to convene a three-judge court. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 512 (1962); see Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518-19, 93 S.Ct. 854, 35 L.Ed.2d 36 (1973).
1 Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 291C-77(c) (1973 Supp.) states:
Except as otherwise provided by county ordinance, no person shall hold or display a movable sign within the right-of-way boundaries of a public highway or on the sidewalk abutting a public highway or in an area adjacent to the highway for the purpose of carrying on political campaign...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Redwood City
...signs are erected adjacent to "traditional first amendment forums, such as public sidewalks and other thoroughfares," Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892, 893 (9th Cir. 1975) 12 where "expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 115, 92......
-
Van v. Travel Information Council
...v. Campbell, supra; State v. Miller, 83 N.J. 402, 416 A.2d 821 (1980); Martin v. Wray, 413 F.Supp. 1131 (E.D.Wis.1979); Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892 (9th Cir. 1975); Ross v. Goshi, 351 F.Supp. 949 (D. Hawaii 1972); Peltz v. City of South Euclid, 11 Ohio St.2d 128, 228 N.E.2d 320 (1967); Norat......
-
City of Antioch v. CANDIDATES'OUTDOOR GRAPHIC SERV.
...rights. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 521-40, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 2899-09, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981). 5 See also Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892 (9th Cir.1975) (Hawaii statute banning movable political signs but not commercial signs from sidewalks violates equal protection); Orazio v. Tow......
-
Orazio v. Town of North Hempstead
...the public upon whom falls the serious and challenging business of self-government." Id., at 1326. The Ninth Circuit, in Aiona v. Pai, 516 F.2d 892 (9 Cir. 1975), also distinguished Lehman and held that Mosley required it to overturn a statute which banned movable political campaign signs, ......