Background
Summit Locations and Huntington Outdoor sought to install a two-sided billboard on leased property in Bath Township, Ohio. The proposed billboard would have contained 360 square feet of sign area on each side and stood 30 feet high. A township zoning official denied the application because the zoning resolution prohibited off-premises signs, and Summit sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney’s fees.
The district court dismissed the federal claim for lack of Article III standing because unchallenged provisions independently prohibited pole and high-rise signs and therefore would continue to bar the proposed billboard even if the off-premises-sign ban were invalidated. It declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. Summit appealed, and the township repealed the off-premises-sign ban while the appeal was pending.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Applying its published decision in Midwest Media Property, L.L.C. v. Symmes Township, the court held that Summit’s claimed expressive and economic injuries from being unable to erect the billboard were not redressable. Even if the challenged off-premises-sign ban were invalidated, the separate, unchallenged prohibition on pole and high-rise signs would independently prevent construction of Summit’s billboard.
The court rejected Summit’s procedural, state-law, constitutional, and severability arguments. It concluded that the pole- and high-rise-sign ban could operate independently of the provisions Summit claimed were unconstitutional, particularly given the zoning resolution’s severability clause. Although the permitting process and $100 application fee might have supported a distinct standing theory based on unequal treatment or monetary loss, Summit forfeited that theory by failing to adequately develop it in the district court or its appellate briefing. The court therefore did not reach whether the township’s repeal made any part of the appeal moot.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff generally lacks standing to challenge one restriction when an independent, unchallenged restriction would still prohibit the same proposed conduct.
- Alleged constitutional defects elsewhere in a zoning code do not establish redressability when a severable, content-neutral provision independently causes the asserted injury.
- Permit expenses or discriminatory permitting burdens may constitute distinct injuries, but litigants must clearly identify and develop those standing theories before relying on them.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces a significant threshold rule for First Amendment challenges to sign regulations: billboard operators must address every independently applicable restriction that would prevent the proposed sign, or a court may dismiss the case without reaching the constitutional merits.
It also highlights the importance of pleading separate injuries with precision. A permit fee or unequal regulatory burden may support standing even when invalidating a sign ban would not authorize construction, but those theories can be forfeited if raised only indirectly or too late.