In October, a federal district court in Louisiana denied the City of New Orleans’s motion to dismiss a claim filed by an individual challenging the city’s permit requirement for murals.
In late 2017, Neal Morris, an owner of residential and commercial properties in New Orleans, sought information from the city about the permit process and approval criteria for placing murals on his properties. When he did not receive the requested information, Morris commissioned an artist to paint a mural on one of his properties. The mural contained the infamous vulgar quote by President Donald Trump on the “Access Hollywood” tape, but replaced certain of the inflammatory words with images. Morris was subsequently cited with a violation of the city’s historic district regulations.
In response, Morris filed suit against the city, alleging that the permitting scheme violated his First Amendment rights. Specifically, he claimed that the permit scheme was an unconstitutional prior restraint and that it was a content based regulation. He also claimed due process and equal protection violations. The city subsequently amended its regulations, and the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as moot. When the city then moved to dismiss the case, the plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion.
The court first found that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the mural ordinance. Since the city was attempting to interfere with Morris’s placement of murals, the court found that he had standing. The court moved on to analyze whether the mural ordinance is content neutral or an unconstitutional prior restraint. The mural ordinance requires murals to be submitted to the city for design review, in which the city considers the mural’s compatibility with surrounding properties and neighborhoods and determines whether the mural furthers public welfare. Because these analyses require analysis of the mural’s content, the court found that the regulation was content based. Based on that finding, the court relied upon Thomas v. Chicago Park District to determine that the law was also an unconstitutional prior restraint, because it allowed unbridled administrative discretion in the issuance or denial of mural permits.
The court went on to find that Morris also pled sufficient facts to state an unconstitutional vagueness claim under the Due Process Clause, but dismissed the plaintiff’s “class of one” claim under the Equal Protection Clause.