This HTML5 document contains 111 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
n14http://dbpedia.org/resource/File:
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n15https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/
n18https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n11https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n23https://www.leagle.com/decision/
n19http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n20https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-502/
n16https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n10https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert
rdf:type
dbo:Case owl:Thing wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:LegalCase
rdfs:label
Reed v. Town of Gilbert
rdfs:comment
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the
foaf:name
Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al.
foaf:depiction
n19:Elena_Kagan_Official_SCOTUS_Portrait_(2013).jpg n19:Clarence_Thomas_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg n19:Downtown_Gilbert_-_SWC_Gilbert_&_Page_-_2009-03-23.jpg
dcterms:subject
dbc:Alliance_Defending_Freedom_litigation dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:2015_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
48354776
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1100036271
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:U.S._LEXIS dbr:Freedom_of_speech dbr:Stephen_Breyer dbr:Summary_judgment dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Arizona dbr:Remand_(court_procedure) dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:Gilbert,_Arizona n14:Elena_Kagan_Official_SCOTUS_Portrait_(2013).jpg dbr:Lyle_Denniston dbr:Hadley_Arkes dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Strict_scrutiny dbr:Appeal dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Hill_v._Colorado n14:Clarence_Thomas_official_SCOTUS_portrait.jpg dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Amicus_curiae dbc:2015_in_United_States_case_law n14:Downtown_Gilbert_-_SWC_Gilbert_&_Page_-_2009-03-23.JPG dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_576 dbr:Elena_Kagan dbr:Laugh_test dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Associate_Justice_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court dbr:Sonia_Sotomayor dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbr:L._Ed._2d dbr:9th_Cir. dbr:Walker_v._Texas_Division,_Sons_of_Confederate_Veterans dbc:Alliance_Defending_Freedom_litigation dbr:F.3d dbr:Selective_incorporation dbr:Eugene_Volokh dbr:Lists_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_volume dbr:Nina_Totenberg
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n11:13-502 n16:13-502 n15:13-502_9olb.pdf n10:13-502.html n20: n23:infco20130208102
owl:sameAs
yago-res:Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert n18:25oHf wikidata:Q22025353
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:External_media dbt:Bots dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Good_article dbt:US1stAmendment dbt:Efn-ua dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Notelist-ua dbt:Reflist
dbo:thumbnail
n19:Downtown_Gilbert_-_SWC_Gilbert_&_Page_-_2009-03-23.jpg?width=300
dbp:docket
13
dbp:joinmajority
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor
dbp:lawsapplied
U.S. Const. amend. I, Gilbert, Ariz., Land Development Code , ch. 1, ยง4.402
dbp:oralargument
n11:13-502
dbp:parallelcitations
172800.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
155
dbp:usvol
576
dbp:arguedate
0001-01-12
dbp:argueyear
2015
dbp:case
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. ___
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-18
dbp:decideyear
2015
dbp:findlaw
n10:13-502.html
dbp:fullname
Clyde Reed, et al., Petitioners v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al.
dbp:holding
A municipal ordinance that placed stricter limitations on the size and placement of religious signs than other types of signs was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech.
dbp:justia
n20:
dbp:litigants
Reed v. Town of Gilbert
dbp:majority
Thomas
dbp:otherSource
Supreme Court
dbp:otherUrl
n15:13-502_9olb.pdf
dbo:abstract
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage. The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content-based restrictions on speech. In 2005, Gilbert, Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas. The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed "political" or "ideological" messages. When the town's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance, the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town's sign ordinance imposed content-based restrictions that did not survive strict scrutiny because the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Justice Thomas also clarified that strict scrutiny should always be applied when a law is content-based on its face. Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan both wrote opinions concurring in the judgment, in which they argued that content-based regulations should not always automatically trigger strict scrutiny. Although some commentators praised the court's decision as a victory for "individual liberty", other commentators criticized the Court's methodology. Some analysts have also suggested that the case left open several important questions within First Amendment jurisprudence that may be re-litigated in future years.
dbp:concurrence
Breyer Alito Kagan
dbp:joinconcurrence
Ginsburg, Breyer Kennedy, Sotomayor
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert?oldid=1100036271&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
29934
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Reed_v._Town_of_Gilbert