 Writing for a majority of the Court , Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town 's sign ordinance imposed content @-@ based restrictions that did not survive strict scrutiny because the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest . Justice Thomas also clarified that strict scrutiny should always be applied when a law is content @-@ based on its face . Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan both wrote opinions concurring in the judgment , in which they argued that content @-@ based regulations should not always automatically trigger strict scrutiny . Although some commentators praised the court 's decision as a victory for " individual liberty " , other commentators criticized the Court 's methodology . Some analysts have also suggested that the case left open several important questions within First Amendment jurisprudence that may be re @-@ litigated in future years . 
