A dispute over billboard permits has led a Michigan-based outdoor advertising company to challenge the constitutionality of local sign regulations, raising questions about free speech and fair treatment under the law. The complaint was filed by International Outdoor, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 13, 2026, naming Charter Township of Clinton as the defendant.
According to court documents, International Outdoor, Inc., an outdoor advertising business operating throughout Michigan, alleges that Clinton Township’s sign ordinances impose unconstitutional restrictions on its ability to display messages on leased or owned properties. The company states that its revenue depends on selling space for various commercial and noncommercial messages on its signs.
The complaint outlines how Clinton Township regulates signage through Chapter 1488 of its codified ordinances. These rules were amended on August 26, 2024. Both before and after this amendment, International Outdoor claims that certain types of signs are regulated or exempted based on their content—a practice it describes as a “content-based prior restraint.” The stated purpose of these regulations is to reduce distractions for drivers, diminish visual pollution from excessive signage, and protect public health and safety.
International Outdoor argues that both versions of the ordinance allow some signs—such as announcement or political signs—in all zoning districts while restricting others based on content or location. For example, only billboards with commercial content are subject to certain regulations; noncommercial content is treated differently. The company asserts that this distinction violates First Amendment protections because it gives township officials “unfettered discretion” in granting or denying permits without clear standards.
The legal filing further claims that variance procedures in the ordinance are subjective and undefined. It states: “The criteria by which the Township may grant variances are subjective and arbitrary,” making compliance ambiguous for applicants.
The case centers around International Outdoor’s attempt to install a double-sided digital billboard at 22600 Hall Road in an Office/Service Low-Rise zoning district. The application was submitted in August 2022 but denied by Clinton Township’s Building Department days later. According to the denial notice cited in the complaint: “Zoning Board of Appeals cannot hear a district change of use case, therefore this sign is denied and will not be permitted.”
International Outdoor contends that this denial violates its right to free speech under both federal and state constitutions because it burdens expression through an arbitrary permitting scheme lacking objective criteria. The company also alleges unequal treatment compared to another firm—Outdoor One Communication LLC—which applied for a similar sign permit at 21652 Hall Road in a different business district.
While both companies sought permits under what International Outdoor describes as identical regulatory frameworks for similar types of signs—including commercial, political, religious, and announcement messages—only Outdoor One ultimately received approval after settling with the township through a consent judgment executed on August 26, 2024. That competitor’s sign was constructed and is now operated by another entity.
International Outdoor claims this disparate treatment lacked any rational basis or legitimate governmental interest: “This differential treatment resulted in International Outdoor being unable to erect its sign, while Outdoor One was given permits.” As a result, International Outdoor says it has suffered lost revenue and competitive disadvantage.
The lawsuit seeks several forms of relief: declaratory judgments finding both versions of Clinton Township’s sign ordinance unconstitutional; injunctions requiring issuance of permits; damages for financial harm; attorney fees; costs; interest; and any other remedies deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys Benjamin S. Herrick (P66112) and Paul T. O’Neill (P57293) represent International Outdoor in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-11192-JEL-KGA.
Source: 226cv11192_International_Outdoor_v_Charter_Township_Complaint_Eastern_District_of_Michigan.pdf
