BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a judge’s ruling that Maine Gov. Paul LePage was within his rights to remove a large mural depicting scenes from the state’s labor history from an office building that served as home of the Maine Department of Labor.
After taking office, the Republican governor created an uproar last year when he ordered the 11-panel, 7-foottall mural removed from a Labor Department waiting room because he believed it presented a one-sided view of history that bowed to organized labor.
Five Mainers, including three artists, filed a lawsuit claiming the removal violated the mural artist’s First Amendment rights.
But the lawsuit was rejected by a federal judge in Maine who agreed with the administration’s claim that the governor is entitled to engage in “government speech.” The ruling was upheld Wednesday by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was unclear if the mural’s supporters planned further appeals.
In Wednesday’s ruling, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch suggested that critics of the labor mural’s removal can show their displeasure in other ways, including at the ballot box.
“There are those who disagree with the decision to remove the mural from the (Maine Department of Labor). Governors and administrations are ultimately accountable to the electorate through the political process, which is the mechanism to test disagreements,” Lynch wrote.
Featuring World War II’s “Rosie the Riveter,” a 1937 shoe strike in Maine and New Deal-era U.S. Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, the mural commissioned by then-Democratic Gov. John Baldaci was created by artist Judy Taylor after a competition by the Maine Arts Commission.
A full-sized replica has been displayed in Maine, but the location of the original artwork has been a mystery ever since its removal. The LePage administration has declined to divulge its whereabouts.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less