NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge has struck down part of a real estate developer's lawsuit filed against the City of New Orleans after he was ordered to remove a pictograph mural detailing President Donald Trump's infamous taped comments.
U.S. District Court Judge Martin L. C. Feldman, on the bench in Louisiana's Eastern District, granted a defense motion to dismiss plaintiff Neal Morris' claim for a "class of one" equal protection claim under the 14th Amendment. Feldman's 35-page order issued Oct. 18 also upheld Morris' claim that a provision in New Orleans' Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance [CZO] amounts to unconstitutional content-based regulation and prior restraint, which would be a free speech violation under the First Amendment.
The ordinance distinguishes between permit holders and non-permit holders, "allowing the former to install murals on the exterior walls of their property and precluding the latter from doing so," Feldman said in his order. "Accordingly, this statutory classification infringes upon the freedom of expression under the First Amendment and triggers strict scrutiny analysis."
U.S. District Court Judge Martin L. C. Feldman
The American Civil Liberties Union in Louisiana filed the lawsuit on Morris' behalf in March after Morris failed to get the city's approval for the mural placed on the side of his warehouse. Morris commissioned the mural on the South Liberty Street property last November. The mural depicts portions of Trump's well-known comments taped during a 2005 "Access Hollywood" interview.
The controversial comments were made public during Trump's 2016 presidential run.
In his motion, Morris claimed "that he was perhaps treated differently" than were two other alleged non-permit holders who put up murals in the city, but he did not claim the differential treatment had been intentional, Feldman said in his order.
"In other words, the plaintiff has not alleged that the city's decision to cite him for not having obtained a murals permit, as required by the CZO, was irrational and wholly arbitrary," Feldman said in his order. "Because the intent requirement is crucial to such a claim, the plaintiff has not stated a class of one Equal Protection claim under the 14th Amendment."