Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the director may not regulate noncommercial, protected speech contained within any advertising display authorized by, or exempted from, this chapter.
Maldonado's suit fares well as far as the first and third factors are concerned: Maldonado alleges that his current conduct is in violation of COAA, and Caltrans *1045 has undoubtedly enforced the statute against Maldonado in the past. Although the second factor is a closer question, it also tends to favor Maldonado: while there may not have been specific threats of enforcement against his current signs, the fact that an injunction had been entered against Maldonado certainly qualifies as a threat of enforcement. We therefore conclude that Maldonado's First Amendment challenge meets the constitutional component of ripeness.
Maldonado's suit meets the first prong because there has been no contention that the record needs to be developed further in order for the district court to be able to address the constitutional challenge.... The second factor also weighs in favor of Maldonado because withholding consideration of his claims will require him to risk being found in contempt of the state court injunction in order to be able to challenge the constitutionality of the statute.
There are obvious differences, however, between an injunction and a generally applicable ordinance. Ordinances represent a legislative choice regarding the promotion of particular societal interests. Injunctions, by contrast, are remedies imposed for violations (or threatened violations) of a legislative or judicial decree.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |