A sign ordinance that restricts most signs in a historic district and applies to a political banner that is longer than allowed is challenged. The best argument against the ordinance is that it is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest and leaves alternative channels unaddressed. This reflects the standard that:

A sign ordinance that restricts most signs in a historic district and applies to a political banner that is longer than allowed is challenged. The best argument against the ordinance is that it is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest and leaves alternative channels unaddressed. This reflects the standard that:

• A. The ordinance is not the least restrictive means; it must be narrowly tailored.
• B. The ordinance must be strictly tailored to a compelling interest.
• C. Content-based restrictions always fail, regardless of tailoring.
• D. The ordinance is valid if it applies to all signs equally.

Answer: (B)

Content-based restrictions on speech face strict scrutiny. The government must show a compelling interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, using the least restrictive means, while keeping open alternative channels for speech. In this case, the sign ordinance targets a political banner by length and broadly limits signs in a historic district, so it restricts political speech based on content. The strongest challenge is that it isn’t narrowly tailored and does not leave open alternative channels for expression, meaning there are less restrictive ways to protect the district’s interests (like tailored time/place/manner rules or letting smaller banners through). Because it fails the tailoring requirement, the ordinance would not be upheld under strict scrutiny. Hence the statement that the standard is strict scrutiny—requiring a compelling interest and narrow tailoring with consideration of alternatives—is the best framing.

Content-based restrictions on speech face strict scrutiny. The government must show a compelling interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, using the least restrictive means, while keeping open alternative channels for speech. In this case, the sign ordinance targets a political banner by length and broadly limits signs in a historic district, so it restricts political speech based on content. The strongest challenge is that it isn’t narrowly tailored and does not leave open alternative channels for expression, meaning there are less restrictive ways to protect the district’s interests (like tailored time/place/manner rules or letting smaller banners through). Because it fails the tailoring requirement, the ordinance would not be upheld under strict scrutiny. Hence the statement that the standard is strict scrutiny—requiring a compelling interest and narrow tailoring with consideration of alternatives—is the best framing.