The town of Gilbert, Arizona, passed an ordinance that restricted the maximum size of a sign depending upon the content of the sign. Signs advertising political candidates were allowed to be as large as 32 square feet and could stay in place indefinitely, and signs that advertised general ideas were limited to 20 square feet and were also allowed to be placed indefinitely. However, signs that advertised church services and similar events were limited to six square feet, could only be displayed just before and after an event, and only four were allowed on a property at a time. Good News Community Church and its pastor, Clyde Reed, whose Sunday church services are held at various temporary locations in and near Gilbert, posted signs early each Saturday bearing the church's name and the time and location of the next service and did not remove the signs until around midday Sunday. The church was cited for exceeding the time limits for displaying temporary directional signs and for failing to include an event date on the signs.
Unable to reach an accommodation with the town, petitioners filed suit, claiming that the town code abridged their freedom of speech. The district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The church appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think the high court ruled in this case and why? [Reed v. Gilbert, Arizona, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015).]