IN the OHIO SUPREME COURT LAMAR ADVANTAGE GP COMPANY, LLC, D.B.A. LAMAR ADVERTISING of CINCINNATI, OH, and NORTON OUTDOOR
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed December 18, 2020 - Case No. 2020-0931 IN THE OHIO SUPREME COURT LAMAR ADVANTAGE GP COMPANY, Case No. 2020-0931 LLC, d.b.a. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF CINCINNATI, OH, On Appeal from the Hamilton County Court of Appeals, and First Appellate District NORTON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., Court of Appeals Case No. C-180675 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, NICOLE LEE, TREASURER OF THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, ART DAHLBERG, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS AND INSPECTIONS FOR THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, and REGINALD ZENO, FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, Defendants -Appellees. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF OHIO, THE OHIO ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS, THE OHIO NEWS MEDIA ASSOCIATION, THE E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY, BLOCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS, LAMAR ADVANTAGE GP COMPANY, LLC, D.B.A. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF CINCINNATI, OH AND NORTON OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC. John C. Greiner (0005551) R. Guy Taft (0021894) GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP (Counsel of Record) 312 Walnut Street Stephen E. Schilling (0086897) Suite 1800 Strauss Troy Co., LPA Cincinnati, OH 45202 150 East Fourth Street, 4th Floor Ph: (513) 629-2734 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Fax: (513) 651-3836 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 Email: [email protected] Facsimile: (513) 241-8259 Email: [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Outdoor E-mail: [email protected] Advertising Association of Ohio, the Ohio Association of Broadcasters, the Ohio News Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Lamar Media Association, The E.W. Scripps Advantage GP Company, LLC Company, Block Communications, Inc. and The Authors Guild, Inc. Michael A. Galasso (0072470) (Counsel of Record) Virginia A. Seitz (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Esther M. Norton (0072600) (Counsel of Record) Robbins, Kelly, Patterson & Tucker, Christopher S. Ross (0097459) LPA SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 7 West Seventh Street, Suite 1400 1501 K Street N.W. Cincinnati, OH 45202-2417 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (513) 721-3330 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (513) 721-5001 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 Email: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant Norton Counsel for Amicus Curiae, Outdoor Outdoor Advertising, Inc. Advertising Association of America, Inc Andrew Garth (0088905) Deborah J. La Fetra (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Interim City Solicitor (Counsel of Record) Marion E. Haynes, III (0080671) Pacific Legal Foundation (Counsel of Record) 930 G Street Kevin M. Tidd. (0080957) Sacramento, California 95814 801 Plum Street, City Hall, Rm. 214 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Telephone: (513) 352-4894 Facsimile: (916) 419-7477 Fax: (513) 352-1515 Email: [email protected] E-mail: marion.haynes@cincinnati- oh.gov Counsel for Amicus Curiae, Pacific Legal E-mail: [email protected] Foundation Counsel for Defendants-Appellees TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ....................................................................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................... 1 III. A TAX TARGETED TO A SPECIFIC MEANS OF FIRST AMENDMENT EXPRESSION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. ................................................................................. 2 A. A “Content Neutral” Ordinance Can Be Subject to Strict Scrutiny.................................... 2 B. The Legislature’s Intent in Enacting the Regulation is Not Determinative. ....................... 5 C. There is No Basis for a Finding that Billboards are Not Protected Speech. ....................... 6 IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786 (2011) ...................................................................................................................7 Century Fed., Inc. v. City of Palo Alto, 710 F. Supp. 1559 (N.D. Cal.1988) .......................................................................................7, 9 City of Alameda v. Premier Commc’ns Network, Inc., 156 Cal. App. 3d 148 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) ...........................................................................7, 9 Grosjean v. American Press Co, 297 U.S. 233, 56 S. Ct. 444, 80 L. Ed. 660 (1936) ............................................................2, 3, 5 Hawaii Newsp. Agency v. Bronster, 103 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................5 Inst. In Basic Youth Conflicts, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 213 Cal. Rptr. 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) ......................................................................................7 Lamar Advantage GP Co, LLC v. City of Cincinnati, 155 N.E.3d 245 (Ohio App. 1st Dist. 2020) ..............................................................................6 M'Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) ...................................................................................................................10 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Com’r of Revenue 460 U.S. 575 (1983) ......................................................................................................... passim News Am. Publ’g, Inc.v. FCC, 844 F.2d 800 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................7 Okla. Broad.Ass’n v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 789 P.2d 1312 (Okla. 1990) .......................................................................................................7 Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) .....................................................................................................................6 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155 (2015) ...................................................................................................................5 Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991 ....................................................................................................................7 Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. Hudson, ii 667 F.3d 630 (5th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................................7 United Artists Commc’ns, Inc. v. City of Montclair, 209 Cal. App. 3d 245 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) ...............................................................................7 Vt. Soc’y of Ass’n Execs. v. Milne, 172 Vt. 375, 388-89 (2001)........................................................................................................7 Statutes Cincinnati Municipal Code Chapter 313 .........................................................................................1 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution............................................................................. passim Other Authorities Ashleigh M. Paige, Maryland Digital Ad Tax Bills Vetoed, RIA State & Local Tax Update, 2020 WL 2318812.………….………………….…………. 8 Jennifer W. Karpchuk & Ilya A. Lipin, Salt Trends in Taxing the Digital Economy, 30-NOV J. Multistate Tax'n 18, (2020).………...…………….….………………………… 8 Out of Home Advertising Association of America, History of OOH, (2020) https://oaaa.org/AboutOOH/OOHBasics/HistoryofOOH.aspx .................................................6 iii I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS In June 2018, Cincinnati City Council enacted Ordinance No. 167-2018, which created an excise tax on billboards. The ordinance is embodied in Chapter 313 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code (“CMC”). (See Appendix to Merit Brief of Lamar Advertising GP Company, “Appx.” 69-84). Appellants Lamar Advertising GP Company, LLC (“Lamar”) and Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (“Norton”) filed separate complaints against the city challenging the constitutionality of CMC Chapter 313. In their complaints, Appellants alleged that CMC Chapter 313 was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, the Equal-Protection Clause, and the Commerce Clause. The trial court ultimately issued a lengthy decision finding that CMC Chapter 313 violated the First Amendment. It entered an order granting in part Lamar’s and Norton’s requests for a permanent injunction and enjoined the city from enforcing CMC Chapter 313. (Appx. 23-61). The First District Court of Appeals concluded that that the tax was content neutral and did not single out a particular group of billboard operators to bear the burden. For that reason, it reversed the trial court’s decision on that portion of the Ordinance, and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Appx. 1-22). II. STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE Amici curiae joining this brief are the Outdoor Advertising Association of Ohio, the Ohio Association of Broadcasters, the Ohio News Media Association, the E.W. Scripps Company (the parent company of WCPO-TV in Cincinnati and WEWS-TV in Cleveland), Block Communications, Inc. (the parent company of The Toledo Blade newspaper, television broadcast stations WLIO-TV and WOHL-CD in Lima, Buckeye Broadband, a cable television and internet 1 provider in Toledo, and Toledo Detroit Outdoor, an outdoor advertising company), and The Authors Guild, Inc. (the nation’s oldest and largest professional