849 F. Supp. 2d 82
D. Me.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue Governor LePage and state officials over removal of Judy Taylor’s Maine Labor Mural from the MDOL anteroom, asserting First Amendment viewing rights, due process, fiduciary duty, and APA review.
- The Court denied a TRO in April 2011 and later granted summary judgment for the State on federal claims, basing its decision on government speech doctrine.
- The mural was commissioned by the Maryland of Maine through the MAC, funded by multiple state sources, and installed in August 2008 in a space open to the public.
- The MDOL Call for Artists and Public Art Notification guided the selection; Taylor’s proposal and contract did not reflect explicit State messages, and the artist retained substantial creative control.
- Governor LePage ordered removal in March 2011 after complaints; mural was stored, with ongoing litigation about its location and public access.
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to return the mural to the MDOL or control its display, but the court holds the mural was government speech and dismissal of federal claims followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mural is government speech under the First Amendment | Newton/ Plaintiffs argue mural is artist’s private speech | State argues mural is government speech due to funding, control, display | Yes; mural is government speech; removal not a First Amendment violation |
| Standing to challenge the removal | Plaintiffs have standing as recipients/viewers of the mural | No injury-in-fact; public viewing right insufficient | Plaintiffs lack standing to compel continued display; standing denied |
| Whether Governor’s removal violated the First Amendment | Removal was viewpoint-based suppression of private speech | Removal was government speech decision; governance prerogative | No violation; removal was government speech action under Summum/Johanns |
| Whether due process or state-law claims survive | Removal requires statutory hearing; 27 M.R.S. 86-A and 81 apply | Federal court should dismiss pending state-law claims | Dismissed without prejudice the state-law claims; federal claims resolved in favor of State |
| Impact on artist’s and public-art programs | Public art should not be treated as government speech; chilling effect on artists | Public art programs can involve government speech; artistic expression protected | Court notes hybrid concerns but confirms government-speech characterization and limits on relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2009) (government speech doctrine; monuments and messaging in public spaces)
- Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550 (U.S. 2005) (government speech where government sets message; private input allowed but control matters)
- Sutliffe v. Epping Sch. Dist., 584 F.3d 314 (1st Cir. 2009) (government speech; control over content via channels used)
- Griswold v. Driscoll, 616 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2010) (standing and merits intertwined in government-speech context)
- Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1982) (standing limitations; governmental property and speech)