Article III standing; Redressability; First Amendment; 42 USC § 1983; Sign ordinance; Off-premises signs; Prior restraint; Content-based distinctions; Unchallenged alternative restriction on high-rise & pole signs; Midwest Media Prop LLC v Symmes Twp; Severability; Permit-process injury; Application fee; Forfeiture

The court held that plaintiff lacked Article III standing to challenge defendant-township’s off-premises sign ban because unchallenged high-rise and pole-sign restrictions independently barred its proposed billboard. Plaintiff sought to build a 30-foot, two-sided billboard in the township, but the zoning inspector denied the permit application based on the township’s ban on off-premises signs. The district court dismissed plaintiff’s federal First Amendment claim for lack of standing under Midwest Media and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Ohio-law claim. On appeal, the court held that plaintiff’s inability to put up the billboard was not redressable because even if it invalidated the off-premises-sign ban, the unchallenged bans on high-rise and pole signs “still would preclude” the billboard. The court rejected plaintiff’s attempts to distinguish Midwest Media, reasoning that the pleading-stage posture did not matter because plaintiff still had to plausibly allege standing, and the billboard would “flout” the separate high-rise and pole-sign limits. The court also rejected plaintiff’s severability theory because the sign limits could be cleanly separated from any allegedly unconstitutional provisions, and the zoning resolution’s severability clause confirmed that invalidating “any provision” would not affect the continued enforcement of the rest. Finally, the court acknowledged that the permitting process and $100 application fee might have supported a separate standing theory, but held that plaintiff forfeited it because counsel identified the injury as the denial of the billboard, and the fee-based theory came “too little, too late.” Affirmed.