IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JOHN S. LA TOUR PLAINTIFF

VS. Case No. 02-5001

CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEFENDANT

ORDER

Now on this 6 day of February, 2003, comes on for consideration plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment On The Issue Of The Facial Constitutionality Of The Fayetteville, Arkansas Sign Ordinance, UDO Chapter 174 (Formally Ch. 158) (document 35), and from said motion, the supporting documentation, and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff challenges the Sign Ordinance ("the Ordinance") of the City of Fayetteville ("the City") as being facially unconstitutional in the following respects:

(a) The Ordinance does not require local officials to make decisions regarding the issuance of sign permits within a definite and brief period of time.

(b) The Ordinance does not guarantee prompt judicial review of the denial of a sign permit.

(d) The Ordinance constitutes content-based regulation because the content of a sign determines whether a permit for that sign is required.
(e) The Ordinance is unconstitutional because it prohibits the use of certain words on a sign.

2. Before addressing the merits of plaintiff's claim, the Court must take up the issue of whether plaintiff has standing to bring it.

This is so because standing is an inescapable component of the jurisdiction of an Article III court, which exists to resolve cases

or controversies. "[Courts are not roving commissions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the Nation's laws.

Constitutional judgments. . . are justified only out of the necessity of adjudicating rights in particular cases between the litigants

brought before the Court. . . ." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 u.s. 601 (1973) (internal citations omitted). While standing

requirements have been traditionally relaxed in First Amendment "overbreadth" claims, plaintiff does not herein assert such a

claim. Nor does plaintiff claim to have suffered any injury personal to himself from the alleged facial invalidities of the

Ordinance. Thus the Court questions whether plaintiff has standing to assert his facial challenges. Neither party has briefed the

standing issue, although plaintiff has asserted standing in his Amended Complaint. The issue is sufficiently important and

complex to merit briefing, and the Court therefore directs the parties to submit any desired additional briefing on or before

February 27, 2003. The motion will be under submission until that date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE U S DISTRICT COURT ~