Have you ever wondered if the First Amendment protects architectural expression? Recently, the United States Supreme Court had a case -Burns v. Town of Palm Beach- where they had to come up with a ruling on the matter. Donald Burns decided to make a significant lifestyle change by creating plans to demolish his home and rebuild a new one. The current home is the typical style of residences for the community (Spanish style), and Burns wanted an ‘international style’ for his new home, which has a much more modern take on architecture. There would be more glass and minimalism involved in the design.
When Burns went to the town council of Palm Beach to get these plans approved he was not granted the approval necessary to move forward. The councils objective is to maintain the beauty and architectural aesthetic of the community. Many would argue that this is very subjective considering the fact that the wording in the clauses in the guidelines of many communities similar to Palm Beaches are very vague. Burns was still not granted approval even after going back and forth a couple of times with the council and adjusting his plans in order to compromise with the Palm Beach council. These compromises included removing some of the glass in the structure and adding additional landscaping to shield the building from the public. The architecture was still deemed as too different from the homes surrounding it.
Burns took the case up to the United States District Court of Southern Florida. Burns was suing the town of Palm Beach because he claimed that the town was infringing upon his First Amendment rights. The First Amendment is defined by Cornell Law as: “The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition… It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely…” Burns' case focuses on the expression part of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment can cover the freedom of expression through speech, music, dancing, and other forms of art. Burns' main argument was that his freedom of expression through architectural art was being denied. There are not many (maybe none at all) cases of previous lawsuits also containing the infringement of the First Amendment pertaining to architectural expression. The courts did their best by referencing Spence v. Washington and Mastrovincenzo v. City of New York when trying to decide an outcome for the case.
It was concluded by the court that architecture is an object and not a conduct/expression that needs to be protected by the First Amendment. It was emphasized that the First Amendment is in place to protect conduct.
Another outcome of the case was that the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the expression that was demonstrated in Burns’ proposed architectural plans was not a sufficient amount in order to need to be protected by the First Amendment. The overall outcome of this case raised many questions for the public. Should the United States Supreme Court have a say in the architecture of residences? Why was architectural art not protected by the First Amendment when other art forms are protected?
The outcome of this case will likely be referenced for similar future cases that may arise with similar problems. It is important to note that these rulings can be overturned in the future, but that requires a very long and difficult process and it rarely happens. A recent example is the United States Supreme Court overturning the precedent of Roe v. Wade.
By Elidia Magaña
Sources:
.png){kind=small}
Comments