Circuit Court Upholds Village's Billboard Regulations
The
ability of Illinois municipalities to regulate billboards along interstate
highways has been the subject of much litigation over the past few decades.
These disputes usually center around the sometimes-conflicting provisions of the
Highway Advertising Control Act of 1971 (“Highway Act”).
The
Highway Act provides maximum size, spacing, and lighting restrictions for
interstate highway billboards that are permitted by IDOT. However, the Highway Act also expressly authorizes
municipalities to adopt more restrictive regulations for interstate highway
billboards than those imposed by the Highway so long as the municipal regulations are consistent with
“customary use.” Many advertisers have challenged municipal billboard
regulations on the grounds that they exceeded the authority provided under the
Highway Act or were inconsistent with the “customary use” of billboards. A number of Illinois courts have upheld home rule municipal bans on billboards, and both home rule and non-home rule municipal restrictions on the size and location of billboards.
A recent decision by an Illinois circuit upholding the billboard
regulations of a non-home rule municipality may provide more clarity to the
issue. In WC Media v. Village of Gilberts,
an advertiser challenged the Village’s size, spacing, and lighting regulations
for interstate billboards. The Village had adopted billboard size restrictions that
mirrored the restrictions that apply to all signs in the Village’s commercial
and industrial districts.
An advertiser filed a lawsuit against the Village alleging that the Village’s billboard
regulations violated the Highway Act because (1) the size limitations were so
strict that they eliminated a billboard’s commercial value, which acted as an
effective prohibition on billboards; and (2) the Village’s billboard
regulations were inconsistent with the customary use of billboards preferred by
advertisers. The lawsuit claimed that the Village's ordinance was "facially" unconstitutional. The Village filed a motion to dismiss the advertiser’s complaint based on the various Illinois cases upholding a municipality's authority to restrict billboards, among other defenses.
The
court sided with the Village and dismissed the advertiser’s complaint with
prejudice. In addition to finding that the advertiser did not meet its burden to challenge the ordinance on "facial" grounds, the court also found that the size and spacing restrictions imposed by the Village
did not violate the Highway Act or the “customary use” of billboards. While not directly deciding the question, the
ruling also seemed to imply that non-home rule municipalities could completely
prohibit billboards, stating that “if a total ban on highway billboards does
not run afoul of the act, it follows that Defendant’s ordinance must be
valid.”
The advertiser has filed an
appeal of the decision, and we will keep you updated when a final ruling is
issued. However, if upheld, this ruling
will confirm the authority of non-home rule municipalities to tailor their
billboard regulations to local circumstances without violating the Highway Act.
Post Authored by Kurt Asprooth & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
Disclaimer: Ancel Glink represented the Village in this case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment