ST. LOUIS (Legal Newsline) – The City was merely enforcing its right to rid itself of a public nuisance, St. Louis is arguing after it painted over a woman’s Black Lives Matter mural.
Facing a lawsuit from Katherine Bernhardt, St. Louis on Sept. 17 filed a motion to dismiss that says it did not violate her First Amendment right to free speech when it erased a mural she painted in June 2020.
Bernhardt says she painted it to show support for ongoing BLM protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd, but St. Louis says city code declaring graffiti a public nuisance does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
“Courts have routinely held that public safety, aesthetics and reducing blight are significant governmental interests,” lawyers for the city wrote.
“The ordinance serves substantial governmental interests… Plaintiff makes no allegations about why the ordinance was enacted or what government purpose it may serve.”
Bernhardt painted over detachable panels outside of her building. On July 17, 2020, workers for St. Louis destroyed the mural by covering it with white paint, leading her to file suit through Lisa Hoppenjans of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law.
They’re facing an ordinance that declares graffiti is “obnoxious” and says it must be removed.
“(T)he First Amendment does not guarantee that all mediums of expression, like graffiti, be available to Plaintiff in all places and at all times,” the motion to dismiss says. “Hence, despite Plaintiff’s allegations that the ordinance limits her means of public expression, the ordinance passes constitutional muster because the purposes for which it was enacted are significant governmental interests, and said interests would be achieved less effectively without the ordinance.”
The ordinance is content-neutral, the motion says. St. Louis is represented by City Counselor Matt Moak’s office.