Was Narrowly-Tailored to Address Legitimate Traffic Safety Concerns. Finally, the Court turns to the question of whether the restriction on Plaintiffs religious speech was “narrowly tailored” to address legitimate traffic safety concerns. A restriction may be narrowly tailored for First Amendment purposes even if it restricts more speech or conduct than is absolutely necessary. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 726, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 2494, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (“when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the statutory goal”); Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2757, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989) (<HOLDING>) It is important to note here that the
holding that speech must be at least a substantial or motivating factor in the discharge quotations omitted holding that in a least restrictive means inquiry the governments burden is twofold it must support its choice of regulation and it must refute the alternative schemes offered by the challenger but it must do both through the evidence presented in the record emphasis added holding that narrowtailoring requires a state to act with precision and to use the least restrictive means of achieving its compelling interest holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury holding that a contentneutral regulation of protected speech must be narrowlytailored but it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so