I-580 Billboards, Alameda County

Major Victory for Plaintiffs, Michael Shaw and Citizens for Free Speech!

Judge Charles R. Breyer Decision

In a major victory for Michael Shaw and Citizens for Free Speech, Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court (Northern District of California) granted an injunction against Alameda County and then issued a final ruling protecting the six billboards erected in 2014 along I-580 between Hayward and Pleasanton. The Court ruled that the County’s zoning ordinance is facially unconstitutional and that their provisions cannot be used to regulate the speech of anyone in the unincorporated areas of the County. The Breyer ruling is the one that counts.

The Breyer ruling is the law of the case and establishes the legitimacy of the signs.

Rulings from the Breyer Court:

When the billboards originally went up on June 3, 2014, a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was awarded by the District Court which precluded the County from taking any adverse action. The Court granted the preliminary injunction stating, “The Zoning Ordinance Gives Officials Too Much Discretion in Approving or Disapproving Signs Based on Their Content.”

The County’s tyranny of over-regulation was significantly lessened as a result of this ground breaking ruling.


 

SHOCKER – Alameda County Defies Federal Court Ruling!

Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong Decision

In 2017 the Federal Court issued a final ruling in favor of Citizens for Free Speech. Rather than abide by the Court’s final ruling and law, Alameda County is blatantly defying the court order and has sought to remove the signs, even though it had not brought a counterclaim against Citizens in the 2014 action by Judge Breyer. Citizens therefore brought a new action in Federal Court contending that the County is barred from seeking to now remove the signs on the grounds of res judicata. In the new action, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong determined that res judicata did not apply.

Judge Brown Armstrong Court Documents – click HERE


Alameda County Board of Supervisors Hearing on I-580 Billboards

Michael Shaw speaks at an Alameda County Board of Supervisors Hearing regarding the County’s attempt to remove the billboards erected on I-580, despite Judge Breyer’s ruling in 2017 allowing the billboards to remain.

Oakland, California – February 5, 2019


East Bay Citizen article – February 6, 2019

Alameda County supervisor felt he was threatened by ABAG antagonist

A nearly five-year legal fight between Alameda County and a property owner he believes anti-government signage he placed along Interstate 580 constitutes free speech took a strange turn Tuesday afternoon. Before the Board of Supervisors voted to deny an appeal of an east county zoning decision ordering removal of the anti-government billboards, Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty accused the appellant, Michael Shaw, of issuing a threat against him.

Read full article here.

East Bay Citizen article – June 13, 2019

You won’t have Scott Haggerty to kick around anymore; longtime county supe will not seek re-election

One of the most sought after seats in Alameda County politics is now up-for-grabs. Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty announced Thursday that he will not seek re-election to his Board of Supervisors District 1 seat. Haggerty has served portions of the Tri-Valley and Fremont since 1996.

Read full article here.


Relevant Legal News regarding Free Speech

I. Commercial Speech Now Subject to Strict Scrutiny Review: NIFLA v. Becerra and Billboards

by Michael Shaw

An article was published in Forbes magazine on July 5, 2018 that examined the late June 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in NIFLA v. Becerra [585 U.S. _ (2018)]. The decision gives an incredible bounce to the recognition of the rights of billboard operators. The Forbes article by Cory Andrews, an attorney with the Washington Legal Foundation, is entitled “The Dog That Didn’t Bark in the Night: SCOTUS’s NIFLA v. Becerra and the Future of Commercial Speech.” Perhaps some real clarity has been inserted into this area of free speech law.

Under the strict scrutiny standard nearly all speech is protected from government interference. NIFLA, a pro-life organization was compelled to speak about abortion availability, the very action the organization opposed and for which it offered alternatives. Under the standard of strict scrutiny, the government is rarely able to foreclose or compel speech.

NIFLA, with pregnancy centers throughout the state, was required under California law to post at each counseling center the nearest government supported free abortion clinic. This posting was required to be in obvious view of every patient. The Supreme Court knocked down the law. The Court held that if content of speech is reviewed by government, the reviewer is subject to the high legal standard of ‘strict scrutiny’ in order to satisfy the first amendment requirement that individual speech be protected. Accordingly, the California law was struck down.

For decades, the Court has held a much lower standard of review, “intermediate scrutiny” which government agencies used to bar commercial speech from certain forums like billboards. Andrews sees Thomas’s majority (5-4) opinion as the “dog that didn’t bark.” His assessment is that this case sets a comprehensive order requiring strict scrutiny in essentially any government control over speech. Why Andrews describes the case as the dog that didn’t bark is because the Court did not directly overturn the intermediate scrutiny theory. (See below on a very recent ninth circuit case that reinforces the idea that content of speech regulation is subject to strict scrutiny standards.)

An Amicus Brief filed by the National League of Cities in the NIFLA case stated the following: “Changing course now would upend not only existing Supreme Court precedent but the holdings of numerous lower courts around the country. It would also require local governments around the country to rewrite many of their ordinances that have relied on decades-old Supreme Court precedent.”

Clearly recent Supreme Court rulings, including NIFLA will be beneficial in the determination of Citizens’ speech rights being exercised at I-580 in Castro Valley and in San Jose on Highway 101 and I-880. While the country continues down a path that is limiting citizen rights, free speech law is rising.

II. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Court applies Strict Scrutiny Standard to content based speech (August 2018)

In Askins v. USDHS [No. 16-55719 (9th Cir. 2018)] two individuals had border entrance photos confiscated by border police. The appellate court found that the “government had the burden of demonstrating that its restrictions on speech were the least restrictive means necessary to serve a compelling government interest.” In the view of the Court, the Trial Court did not make a satisfactory analysis of this core requirement protecting free speech. So, in protection of the Plaintiff’s right to speak, through photos, the Court determined that the Plaintiff’s rights were violated when the lower court dismissed the case without a hearing or a finding which would support the government’s observance of a strict scrutiny standard when applying its regulations regarding pictures. “When the government restricts speech, the Government bears the burden of proving the constitutionality of its actions.” The Court proceeds to say: “It is rare that a regulation restricting speech because of its content will ever be permissible.”


Pictures of I-580 Billboards

Click on any image below to see full-size.


Michael Shaw on the I-580 Billboards:


Alameda County:  I-580 Political Signs Spark Free Speech Fight

In October 2014, Michael Shaw was interviewed by Matt O’Brien, a reporter with the Bay Area News Group, regarding the billboards along I-580 in Alameda County, CA. The article was published in print form in the Oakland Tribune and appears in several online news publications including the Contra Costa Times, Inside Bay Area, and the San Jose Mercury News.

CASTRO VALLEY — Property rights activist Michael Shaw says the freeway billboards he erected this summer are a warning against a global government plot to abolish private property and crowd Americans into dense housing.

Alameda County says the unauthorized signs are “an assault on (the) visual senses” of Interstate 580 commuters. It wants them removed.

The two sides are now locked in a legal battle. So far, Shaw is winning.

Read the full article here.


Read the Press Releases here:


I-580 Billboards Captured in Drone Flight Video:

Comments are closed.

Web Analytics

Clicky