 At a subsequent status conference after the appellate court decision , the parties decided to resolve all the issues on summary judgment , rather than via new preliminary injunction motions . The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Town 's motion for summary judgment . The church then appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court , holding the town 's ordinance was content neutral . Citing Hill v. Colorado , the Ninth Circuit ruled that " Gilbert did not adopt its regulation of speech because it disagreed with the message conveyed ” and that the town 's “ interests in <unk> [ ing ] temporary signs are unrelated to the content of the sign " . Additionally , the Ninth Circuit concluded that the distinctions between ideological signs , political signs , and temporary directional signs were " based on objective factors relevant to Gilbert ’ s creation of the specific exemption from the permit requirement and do not otherwise consider the substance of the sign ” . Based on its determination that the ordinance was content @-@ neutral , the Ninth Circuit " applied a lower level of scrutiny to the Sign Code " and held it did not violate the First Amendment . The church then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States , which granted certiorari on July 1 , 2014 . 
