SCOTUS’ unanimous decision against Gilbert (AZ)

Decisive victory for free speech

In an unusual unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decisively affirmed Thursday that the government cannot play favorites when it comes to free speech. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represented an Arizona church in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a case involving restrictions on temporary signs that provided the vehicle for the justices to reaffirm and clarify that the government cannot single out one form of speech over another based on how worthy the government thinks it is. Read more here.

Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom won a decisive U.S. Supreme Court victory on behalf of 82-year-old Pastor Clyde Reed, his wife Ann —- and all Americans. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

The case was argued January 12, 2015 and decided June 18, 2015. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.


6 Responses to SCOTUS’ unanimous decision against Gilbert (AZ)

  1. American Dad says:

    In an increasingly secular America, it’s wonderful to see faith triumph. This unanimous opinon is quite a victory!

  2. MacBeth says:

    Many thanks to ADF. We’re fortunate to have this group in the valley.

  3. Braveheart says:

    David v. Goliath….David wins again!!

  4. azgary says:

    Victory for free speech….


    Supreme Court Says Discrimination Against Viewpoint OK on License Plates
    On Thursday, the Supreme Court’s streak of incoherent decisions remained intact, as the Court ruled that the state of Texas could ban Confederate flag symbols from license plates but that the town of Gilbert, Arizona, could not place time restrictions on billboards based on content. This is, to say the least, nonsensical. But we expect nothing less than nonsense from the Supreme Court these days.

    The Court actually issued six decisions on Thursday. Three of them were of somewhat minor importance. In McFadden v. United States, the Court held that the federal government could not prosecute someone for distributing a substance that mimicked the effects of forbidden drugs if that substance was not in fact a forbidden drug. In Ohio v. Clark, the Court found that a three-year-old’s abuse testimony was not banned by the Constitution under the Confrontation Clause. In Davis v. Ayala, the Court decided that the bar for overturning a state decision of harmless error in a criminal trial was higher than that suggested by the petitioner. In Brumfield v. Cain, the Court held that a person with a low IQ merited consideration as to exemption from the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.

    Then there were the two free speech decisions. Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans dealt with a case in which the state of Texas decided to ban a group called the Sons of Confederate Veterans from utilizing the Confederate battle flag on personalized license plates. These were not so-called “general-issue” license plates—they were “specialty license” plates, designed by those who want to pay for them. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles must approve the design. When the Texas DMV rejected the Confederate battle flag, the Sons of Confederate Veterans sued.

    A majority of the Court, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the swing vote, found that the state of Texas could indeed prohibit the use of the Confederate battle flag on license plates, even though private parties designed and paid for the license plates. Texas justified its decision on the grounds that the license plate design offended members of the public.


    • East Valley Conservative says:

      These are distinctly different issues. With the one at hand, the town of Gilbert should be beet red, not from the summer sun but from its arrogant stupidity being so soundly shot down.

  5. Joseph Bickley, Sr. says:

    Alliance Defending Freedom is beginning to win some major battles and is a force to be reckoned with and supported.