IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JOHN S. LA TOUR PLAINTIFF
VS. Case No. 02-500
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.
(c) The Ordinance allows local officials
"unbridled
discretion" in the issuance of sign
permits.
(d) The Ordinance constitutes content-based
regulation
because the content of a sig~ 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 anydesired additional briefing on or before February 27, 2003.
The motion will
be under submission until that date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
U S DISTRICT COURT