Adams Outdoor Advertisement Limited Partnership v. City of Madison, Wisc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing portion of plaintiff’s lawsuit that challenged on First Amendment grounds defendant-City’s ordinance that regulated plaintiff’s “off-premises” billboard signs, where plaintiff argued that ordinance improperly treated off-premises signs less favorably than other signs, and thus constituted improper content-based restriction that could not pass high bar of strict scrutiny. Dist. Ct. could properly find that with respect to all aspects of instant challenge to ordinance, except for challenge to 2009 Amendment to ordinance that banned digital displays on billboards, plaintiff could not proceed on said claims due to notions of claim preclusion, where plaintiff and defendant had entered into 1993 settlement agreement that concerned plaintiff’s state-court action that raised similar First Amendment and equal protection claims with respect to instant ordinance. Dist. Ct. also did not err in finding under intermediate scrutiny test that 2009 Amendment banning digital displays did not violate First Amendment, since: (1) on-/off-premises distinction found in instant ordinance constituted only content-neutral time, place or manner speech regulation that was subject to only intermediate scrutiny; and (2) ordinance served City’s stated interests in promoting traffic safety and preserving visual aesthetics.