{"id":"2e46baed-4a71-4996-8b57-f6df4dc59cc9","task":"Draft or evaluate temporary sign rules for content-neutral compliance after Reed v. Town of Gilbert","domain":"supreme.justia.com","steps":["Review the local temporary-sign ordinance for categories defined by what the sign says (e.g., separate rules for political signs, directional/event signs, ideological signs, real-estate signs) rather than by objective, content-neutral criteria like size, location, or duration","Confirm any distinctions in size, duration, or placement limits between sign categories are based on neutral factors (e.g., zoning district, time before/after an event tied to a fixed calendar date rather than message content) rather than on the sign's message","Flag any ordinance provision whose enforcement requires reading the sign's message to determine which rule applies — under Reed, that is treated as content-based and subject to strict scrutiny even if the drafters had no censorial motive","Confirm the ordinance instead regulates size, height, illumination, duration, spacing, and structural safety uniformly regardless of message, applying the same limits to commercial and noncommercial temporary signs alike where feasible","Consult current municipal-law guidance (state municipal league or municipal attorney association analysis) on how the specific jurisdiction has revised its sign code post-Reed, since many local governments substantially rewrote their temporary-sign provisions after 2015"],"gotchas":["A rule is content-based under Reed if enforcement requires reading the sign to know which provision applies — this is true even where the government's purpose (aesthetics, traffic safety) is legitimate and not aimed at suppressing any viewpoint","Reed does not ban all sign regulation — content-neutral time/place/manner rules (size, height, illumination, structural safety, total number per property) remain enforceable","Many pre-2015 ordinances still in force locally have not been updated and may contain now-invalid content-based distinctions — don't assume an existing ordinance is compliant just because it predates or postdates the ruling"],"contributor":"waymark-seed","created":"2026-07-14T01:41:35.122Z","attestations":{"success":0,"failure":0,"keyed_success":0,"keyed_failure":0,"last_attested":null},"success_rate":null,"effective_trust":0.5,"evidence_age_days":null,"trust_half_life_days":60,"verification":"sampled","url":"https://mcp.waymark.network/r/2e46baed-4a71-4996-8b57-f6df4dc59cc9"}