Newton v. LePage, 700 F.3d 595

Maine Governor LePage ordered removal of a state-funded mural from the MDOL waiting room due to perceived non-neutrality and objections from business groups; the mural would be relocated to Portland City Hall or elsewhere.
The mural, by Judy Taylor, was paid with state and federal funds (Reed Act) and not through Maine's Percent for Art program, and ownership contemplated relocation with state notification rights.
MDOL leadership contemplated relocating the mural after receiving feedback that the waiting area conveyed a pro-labor bias and did not welcome both employers and workers.
Governor LePage announced the mural’s removal as a means to achieve “decor that represents neutrality” and later stated it would be displayed at another public venue.
Plaintiffs Newton and others viewed the mural and sought relief, alleging content- and viewpoint-based suppression; the district court entered judgment for defendants.
The First Amendment issue analyzed centers on government speech doctrine and the appropriateness of relocating government-placed artwork rather than suppressing private speech.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether removal of the mural violated the First Amendment.	Newton argues the removal was viewpoint-based discrimination.	LePage contends relocation was a neutral, non-forum decision to maintain neutrality.	No First Amendment violation; government can relocate art to preserve neutrality.
Whether the MDOL waiting room constitutes a public forum for First Amendment analysis.	Waiting room is a public forum for art display.	Waiting room is not a public (or designated/limited) forum.	Not a public forum; standard public-forum rules do not apply.
Whether the mural constitutes government speech, precluding First Amendment scrutiny.	The mural conveys private expression and is shielded from government control.	The mural’s presence in a government setting allows government to control messaging.	Government speech doctrine supports relocation without First Amendment violation.
Whether the government speech case law requires viewpoint neutrality in this context.	Relocation based on perceived bias is viewpoint discrimination.	Relocation is about neutrality of the setting, not suppressing speech.	Neutrality concerns justify relocation regardless of mural’s content.

Summum v. City of Pleasant Grove, Utah, 555 U.S. 467 (Supreme Court 2009) (government may select views it wishes to express in public spaces)
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550 (Supreme Court 2005) (government speech doctrine limits First Amendment challenges to official messages)
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court 1974) (neutrality and aesthetic considerations can justify government decoration choices)
Sutliffe v. Epping Sch. Dist., 584 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2009) (government can relocate or remove art in captive-audience settings to preserve neutrality)
Close v. Lederle, 424 F.2d 988 (1st Cir. 1970) (institution may remove art based on use of space and audience considerations)
Piarowski v. Illinois Community College Dist. 515, 759 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1985) (removal of art with implied college endorsement is permissible)