 Writing for a majority of the Court , Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town 's sign ordinance was " content based on its face " in light of the fact that the " restrictions in the Sign Code that apply to any given sign [ depend ] entirely on the communicative content of the sign " . Because the church 's signs were " treated differently from signs conveying other types of ideas " , there was " no need to consider the government ’ s justifications or purposes for enacting the Code to determine whether it is subject to strict scrutiny " . Justice Thomas rejected the Ninth Circuit 's conclusion that the ordinance was content @-@ neutral because the regulations were not based on " disagree [ ment ] with the message conveyed " and the reasons for regulating the various categories of signs were " unrelated to the content of the sign [ s ] " . Rather , he emphasized that " [ a ] law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government ’ s benign motive , content @-@ neutral justification , or lack of ' animus toward the ideas contained ' in the regulated speech " . Justice Thomas explained that " innocent motives " do not eliminate the danger of censorship , because governments may one day use content @-@ based laws to regulate " disfavored speech " . 
