In June, the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated an ordinance that controlled the placement of roadside signs in Gilbert, Arizona. The ordinance in Reed v. Town of Gilbert included a byzantine set of exceptions to a general prohibition on the display of outdoor signs without a permit that effectively favored certain kinds of messages over others.

What has some observers worried -- and others pleased -- is that Reed appears to greatly expand the reach of First Amendment rights. Content-based restrictions on speech have always been subject to the exacting strict scrutiny test. But Justice Thomas's opinion expands the definition of content-based speech. A law that targets "a specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter," he wrote.

Since the high Court's ruling, several lower courts have invalidated laws that in the past would have been subjected to a less stringent constitutional test than strict scrutiny. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, recently reversed itself in an Illinois-based case, finding in Norton v. City of Springfield, Illinois, 2015 WL 4714073 (7th Cir. 2015), that Springfield's panhandling ordinance was unconstitutional under the standard set in Reed.  Find out more in the October Illinois Bar Journal.