Does the First Amendment Protect Home Architecture? 11th Circuit to Decide
Can a house make an artistic statement? This case before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit seeks to find out.
April 03, 2020 at 05:56 PM
4 minute read
A novel South Florida constitutional-rights case had its moment before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Friday, when lawyers debated whether the First Amendment should protect the architectural design plans for a plaintiff's house.
Plaintiff Donald Burns sued the town of Palm Beach in 2017, after its architectural commission voted down plans to turn his traditional-style, beachfront home into a larger, more modern structure with a minimalist design.
The board struck down that idea, finding the house would have been "excessively dissimilar" to and "not in harmony" with neighboring properties, but Burns claimed that wrongly restricted his rights to self expression.
The Eleventh Circuit must decide whether U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom of the Southern District of Florida was right to side with Palm Beach.
Plaintiffs counsel Laurie Webb Daniel of Holland & Knight's Atlanta office insisted that her client's home was "an expression of his persona, his philosophy, to show that he was not tied to the past."
She alleged the board's architectural code was vague and uneven in how it was applied, and argued the lower court used the wrong test to find Palm Beach didn't infringe on Burns's First Amendment rights. Daniel is handling the case with Jennifer Mansfield and Matthew Friedlander of Holland & Knight's Jacksonville and Atlanta offices.
Defense attorney Joanne O'Connor of Jones Foster in West Palm Beach urged the appellate panel to consider historical and societal context.
"Never has the exterior facade of a home been understood to be a medium through which its residents communicate with the outside world," O'Connor said.
O'Connor is handling the case with John Randolph.
Burns is the first plaintiff to attempt to apply the First Amendment to a zoning decision—which Eleventh Circuit Chief Judge Ed Carnes remarked wasn't necessarily because it didn't apply, but because nobody's "had the audacity" to take this position before.
The Eleventh Circuit looked to a case in which it ruled that a Fort Lauderdale community event for homeless people was protected by the First Amendment, despite an ordinance that banned food distribution in public parks without a permit.
Judge Robert Luck highlighted some crucial difference between the cases.
"Is your client setting up tables and distributing literature to come look at his house, so that others can see the message?" Luck said. "Did he invite groups to come share and for bus tours to come, 'Please see my house and the message that I want to convey?' Is this in a city park?"
The fate of the lawsuit could hinge on whether Burns' house would be visible to the public. While the plaintiff noted that it's next to a public beach, the defense argued it was set back from the street and that trees and shrubbery would block it from view.
The property's unusual modern design also resulted in some confusion over which part was the front or back, but O'Connor claimed the front faced the street and wouldn't be visible.
"If this house is designed to send a message, it's clearly pointing the wrong way," O'Connor said. "Any message is being sent out into a void."
But Judge Stanley Marcus challenged that assumption, noting that, "I thought the very reason neighbors objected was precisely because it was visible and it was an eyesore, not that it was hidden, but that it was obvious, it was massive and excessively dissimilar."
Daniel argued observers don't necessarily have to understand what message her client hopes to convey.
"If you look at a painting of Jackson Pollock or a 'Jabberwocky' verse of Lewis Carroll, people are going to have different understandings of the message," Daniel said. "That's common with art and artistic expression."
The appellate panel noted that if it were to rule for Burns, that could throw all zoning decisions into question, pointing to cities like Paris, France, and Coral Gables, Florida, to suggest some communities are within their right to maintain a certain architectural look.
The court is yet to rule.
More appeals:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBenworth Accused of Predatory Tactics in Foreclosure Dispute as Elderly Defendant's Health Deteriorates
4 minute read'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 2Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
- 3Spencer Lawton, Savannah Prosecutor Who Tried ‘Midnight in the Garden’ Case, Dies at 81
- 4Uber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
- 5Steve Bannon 'We Build The Wall' Fraud Trial Pushed to February 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250