The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Summit Locations, LLC, in a case involving the company's attempt to put up a billboard in Bath Township, Ohio. The court decided that Summit did not have the legal standing to challenge the township's sign regulations, which included a ban on off-premises signs. This ruling affects outdoor advertising companies and their ability to navigate local zoning laws.
Summit Locations, along with Huntington Outdoor, LLC, sought to expand its advertising business by constructing a billboard. However, Bath Township's zoning regulations prohibited off-premises signs, which include billboards that advertise activities not occurring on the same property. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of local zoning laws and their impact on businesses in the area.
The case, Summit Locations, LLC v. Bd. of Trs., Bath Twp., Ohio (docket number 25-3833), began when Summit applied for a sign permit in February 2024. The township's zoning inspector denied the application, citing the ban on off-premises signs. In response, Summit filed a lawsuit against the township's board of trustees and zoning officials, claiming the ban violated the First Amendment and Ohio law.
Summit argued that the township's regulations imposed a prior restraint on free speech and discriminated against certain types of signs. However, the township countered that even if the ban on off-premises signs was unconstitutional, other regulations, such as height and size restrictions, would still prevent Summit from erecting the billboard. The district court agreed with the township's argument and dismissed the case, stating that Summit lacked standing to challenge the off-premises ban.
In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court's decision, with Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay writing that Summit's inability to challenge the off-premises sign ban was due to the existence of other regulations that would still bar the billboard's construction. The court stated, "Summit’s suit here could not redress that injury, we affirm." This ruling reinforces the precedent set in a previous case, Midwest Media Property, L.L.C. v. Symmes Township, which established that plaintiffs cannot challenge a regulation if other unchallenged regulations would still prohibit their desired conduct.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Summit Locations. It sets a precedent for other outdoor advertising companies that may face similar challenges when navigating local zoning laws. The court's decision highlights the complexities of local regulations and the need for businesses to fully understand the legal landscape before pursuing permits.
Looking ahead, the ruling may discourage other companies from attempting to challenge local sign regulations without a comprehensive understanding of the existing laws. The case also raises questions about the balance between local government authority and the rights of businesses to advertise their products or services. While Summit's appeal was dismissed, the court did not address the potential mootness of the case due to changes in the township's regulations after the appeal was filed.
As of now, it is unclear if Summit Locations plans to appeal the ruling to a higher court. The company may consider its options for moving forward in light of the court's decision and the implications for its business operations in Bath Township and beyond.