Newton v. LePage
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43705
D. Me.2011Background
- Plaintiffs sue Maine Governor LePage and MDOL officials over removal of a mural depicting Maine labor history from the MDOL lobby, claiming First Amendment violation, plus fiduciary, APA, and due process theories; they seek TRO and damages.
- Plaintiffs contend mural is expressive and that removal infringes their right to receive ideas.
- Defendants contend mural is government speech, not subject to First Amendment scrutiny, and that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge government speech.
- Maine Arts Commission contract funding and ownership show state involvement; mural was publicly displayed in a state office, not a private forum.
- Court applies four-factor TRO test, finds standing intertwined with merits, and ultimately denies TRO, finding the mural to be government speech and outside First Amendment constraints.
- Result: TRO denied; court emphasizes federalism concerns and that state leaders may choose speech.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the mural removal protected or barred by First Amendment as government speech? | Plaintiffs argue mural is private speech or tied to reception of ideas; removal suppresses viewpoint. | Defendants argue mural is government speech; removal is not subject to First Amendment scrutiny. | Mural deemed government speech; First Amendment not triggered; TRO denied. |
| Do plaintiffs have standing to challenge First Amendment aspects of mural removal? | Plaintiffs claim concrete injury to their right to receive information. | Public as a group lacks standing to inspect government-owned mural. | Standing intertwined with merits; plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on standing. |
| Do plaintiffs likely succeed on the merits of a First Amendment violation? | Removal based on perceived political viewpoint violates free speech/reception rights. | Government speech doctrine applies; viewpoint neutrality not required. | Likely not succeed; government speech doctrine governs. |
| Any irreparable harm from TRO if denied? | IRREPARABLE harm due to suppression of information and integrity of mural display. | No irreparable harm since speech is government, not private; harms minimal. | No irreparable harm; TRO denied for this reason as well. |
| Does the public interest support granting a TRO? | Protecting First Amendment rights and access to ideas favors TRO. | Judicial intervention in state political speech is inappropriate. | Public interest does not outweigh concerns; TRO denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government speech doctrine; Free Speech Clause does not regulate government speech)
- Griswold v. Driscoll, 616 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2010) (standing and merits intertwined; government speech framework evolving)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982) (discussion of right to receive ideas; library context relevance)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n., 544 U.S. 550 (2005) (government speech; not subject to First Amendment scrutiny)
- Sutliffe v. Epping School Dist., 584 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2009) (government speech via website; viewpoint neutrality not required in some government speech cases)
- Serra v. United States Gen. Servs. Admin., 847 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir. 1988) (artist's rights vs. government speech; precedentially limited by Pleasant Grove)