Serra v. U.S. General Services Administration
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
847 F.2d 1045 (1988)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
The United States General Services Administration (GSA) (defendant) sponsored an art-in-architecture program in which it commissioned artworks for federal buildings from American artists. Under this program, the GSA paid sculptor Richard Serra (plaintiff) $175,000 to install a sculpture at 26 Federal Plaza (the plaza) in Manhattan. The contract between Serra and the GSA provided that the sculpture would be the property of the federal government. In 1981 Serra installed a steel arc that was 120 feet long and 12 feet tall in the middle of the plaza. Soon after the arc’s installation, the steel oxidized and rusted. The GSA received hundreds of letters calling for the arc’s removal because of its appearance and obstructive placement in the middle of the plaza. After a hearing, The GSA decided to remove the arc from the plaza, explaining that the arc’s location prevented the public from using the plaza. The GSA also specified that its decision was unrelated to the arc’s appearance. Serra filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the GSA, alleging that the GSA’s decision to remove the arc violated his rights to freedom of expression and due process. The district court dismissed Serra’s lawsuit, holding that the GSA’s decision to remove the arc was appropriately content neutral and furthered a significant government interest. Serra appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
