Auspro Enterprises, LP v. Texas Department of Transportation

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 19, 2015·No. 03-14-00375-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00375-CV 4213371 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/19/2015 1:56:30 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-14-00375 -CV

FILED IN In the Court of Appeals 3rd AUSTIN, COURT OF APPEALS TEXAS for the Third Judicial District2/19/2015 1:56:30 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Austin, Texas Clerk

AUSPRO ENTERPRISES, LP, Appellant, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 345th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

APPELLEE’S BRIEF

KEN PAXTON SCOTT A. KELLER Attorney General of Texas Solicitor General

CHARLES E. ROY DOUGLAS D. GEYSER First Assistant Attorney Assistant Solicitor General General State Bar No. 24059817

MATTHEW BOHUSLAV Assistant Attorney General

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059) Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Tel.: (512) 936-2540 Fax: (512) 474-2697 douglas.geyser@texasattorneygeneral.gov

ORAL ARGUMENT CONDITIONALLY REQUESTED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities.................................................................................. iv

Statement of the Case ............................................................................... x

Statement Regarding Oral Argument ..................................................... xi

Issues Presented...................................................................................... xii

Statement of Facts .................................................................................... 2

I. The Texas Highway Beautification Act .................................. 2

II. AusPro’s Illegal Sign ............................................................... 8

Summary of Argument .............................................................................. 9

Argument ................................................................................................. 11

I. The Restrictions Imposed By The Act And Its Implementing Regulations Are Valid Time, Place, And Manner Restraints. ............................................................... 11

A. Time, Place, And Manner Restrictions Are Subject To Intermediate Scrutiny. ........................................... 11

B. Barber Controls The Outcome Here. ........................... 13

1. Barber held that the Act is a valid time, place, and manner restriction. ............................ 13

2. AusPro’s purported distinctions of Barber are meritless........................................................ 17

C. Intermediate Scrutiny Governs AusPro’s Challenge...................................................................... 21

D. The Act And Its Regulations Pass Intermediate Scrutiny. ....................................................................... 32

ii II. The Permitting And Licensing Regulations Are Also Content Neutral And Thus Not Unconstitutional Prior Restraints. ............................................................................. 34

A. AusPro Forfeited Its Challenge To The Licensing And Permitting Regulations. ....................................... 35

B. Regardless, AusPro’s Prior-Restraint Challenge Is Meritless. ...................................................................... 37

1. The licensing and permitting regulations are content neutral. ................................................... 38

2. The regulations contain adequate standards to control official discretion. ............................... 42

III. The Act And Its Regulations Do Not Violate The Texas Constitution........................................................................... 46

Prayer ...................................................................................................... 49

Certificate of Service ............................................................................... 50

Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................ 50

iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002)......................................................... 46-47

Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................................. 44-45

Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) ........................................................................ 20

Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985) ........................................................................ 27

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) ............................................................ 15, 30, 33

City of Antioch v. Candidates’ Outdoor Graphic Serv., 557 F. Supp. 52 (N.D. Cal. 1982) ................................................... 23

City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993) ........................................................................ 14

City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) .............................................................. 14, 19, 29

City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988) .................................................................. 36, 44

City of Painesville Bldg. Dep’t v. Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A., 733 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio 2000) ............................................. 24

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 475 U.S. 41 (1986) .......................................................................... 28

Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) .................................................................. 12, 31

iv Collier v. City of Tacoma, 854 P.2d 1046 (Wash. 1993) (en banc) ........................................... 24

Covenant Media of S.C. v. City of N. Charleston, 493 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2007) ........................................ 15, 26, 27, 41

Curry v. Prince George’s Cnty., Md., 33 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D. Md. 1999) .................................................. 23

Davenport v. Garcia, 834 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1992).......................................................... 47, 48

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965) .......................................................................... 37

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988) ........................................................................ 11

Granite State Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 348 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2003) ........................................ 38, 44

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719 (2000) ........................................ 12, 19, 20, 25, 26

John Donnelly & Sons v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Auspro Enterprises, LP v. Texas Department of Transportation, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Auspro Enterprises, LP v. Texas Department of Transportation (Auspro Enterprises, LP v. Texas Department of Transportation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
558 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 2010)
United States v. Stevens
559 U.S. 460 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Freedman v. Maryland
380 U.S. 51 (Supreme Court, 1965)
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
413 U.S. 601 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
453 U.S. 490 (Supreme Court, 1981)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
468 U.S. 288 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.
472 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1985)
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.
475 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1986)
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.
486 U.S. 750 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Frisby v. Schultz
487 U.S. 474 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism
491 U.S. 781 (Supreme Court, 1989)
City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.
507 U.S. 410 (Supreme Court, 1993)
City of Ladue v. Gilleo
512 U.S. 43 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Hill v. Colorado
530 U.S. 703 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Thomas v. Chicago Park District
534 U.S. 316 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Bloedorn v. Grube
631 F.3d 1218 (Eleventh Circuit, 2011)
Snyder v. Phelps
562 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court, 2011)