Colleen Reilly, et al. v. City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, et al.

Whether the test for content neutrality set forth in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000), should be overruled in light of this Court’s holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), and McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), that laws restricting speech on the basis of its function or purpose are facially content-based.

Whether a local government can escape First Amendment liability under Monell even though its single enforcement of a speech-restrictive ordinance chills the petitioner from further speaking, and the government’s designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and its counsel repeatedly confirm through binding admissions that the ordinance operates as a content and viewpoint-based restriction.

Whether a federal court may disregard the unrebutted testimony of a government’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, corroborated by written and oral admissions of counsel, that its ordinance restricts speech based on content and viewpoint, and notwithstanding this evidence provide a limiting construction that the ordinance does not restrict speech based on content or viewpoint.