Burns v. Town of Palm Beach
343 F. Supp. 3d 1258 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a tangible object with both functional and expressive components, such as a residential home, to receive First Amendment protection as expressive conduct, its predominant purpose must be expressive rather than functional.
Facts:
- The Plaintiff, a homeowner in the Town of Palm Beach, sought to build a new residential structure on his property.
- Plaintiff intended the home's modern architectural design to be a form of visual art that intrinsically expressed his personal values.
- He submitted architectural drawings to the Town of Palm Beach's Architectural Commission (ARCOM) for approval.
- The proposed structure's plans included standard residential features such as two stories, a basement, a garage, a laundry room, wine storage, a steam room, bedrooms, and bathrooms.
- The design also incorporated a privacy wall and heavy landscaping to create a buffer between the structure and the public thoroughfare.
- ARCOM denied the Plaintiff's application based on a town ordinance that prohibits building designs that are 'excessively dissimilar' to surrounding structures.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiff filed suit against the Town of Palm Beach in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, asserting First Amendment, void-for-vagueness, and equal protection claims.
- The Town filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment.
- The parties agreed to treat the motion as a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The motion was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the Town's motion be granted.
- The Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, bringing the matter before the District Court Judge for a final ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a town's zoning ordinance regulating architectural aesthetics violate a homeowner's First Amendment right to free expression when it is used to deny a building permit for a structure whose predominant purpose is residential, not expressive?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Beth Bloom
No, the town's zoning ordinance does not violate the homeowner's First Amendment rights. For a tangible object with a non-expressive utilitarian purpose to qualify for First Amendment protection, its predominant purpose must be expressive, which is not the case for a residential home. The court first determined whether the proposed residence constituted expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. It adopted a hybrid test combining the Supreme Court's expressive conduct test from Texas v. Johnson with the Second Circuit's 'predominant purpose' test from Mastrovincenzo for objects with both expressive and functional components. The court found that while the plaintiff subjectively intended to convey a message (satisfying the first prong), the proposed structure failed the next two prongs. Objectively, the predominant purpose of the structure was non-expressive and functional—to serve as a residence—as evidenced by its inclusion of typical living spaces and features designed for privacy rather than public display. Furthermore, there was not a great likelihood that a reasonable observer would understand the structure as predominantly communicating a message, rather than simply being a house. Because the architectural design was not protected speech, the court did not need to subject the ordinance to heightened scrutiny, and it upheld the town's significant interest in regulating aesthetics through zoning.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for claiming First Amendment protection for architecture, particularly for residential structures. By incorporating the 'predominant purpose' test, the court signals that the functional nature of a home will almost always outweigh its expressive elements, granting municipalities broad authority to enforce aesthetic zoning ordinances. This ruling makes it significantly more difficult for property owners to challenge such regulations on free speech grounds, distinguishing functional objects like houses from pure speech like political signs. The case solidifies the legal principle that a government's interest in maintaining community aesthetics is a legitimate basis for land-use regulation that generally does not implicate core First Amendment concerns.
