Activist settles one suit over protest mural

Eminent domain activist Jim Roos and the city of St. Louis are one step closer to getting a resolution on a question that has been plaguing both parties since 2007.

Federal courts will now decide the free speech issues regarding the 30-foot-tall mural. Supplied photo

Can Roos legally keep up a three-story mural protesting the use of eminent domain on one of his buildings?

On Tuesday, Roos settled one part of his legal battle to preserve the 30-foot-tall mural. The city’s Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority apologized to Roos for the actions of its employees in denying him a sign permit.

But the letter makes no mention of free speech or Roos’ right to protest government action by painting a massive circle-and-slash image overlooking Interstates 44 and 55. The settlement includes no money or reimbursement for court or attorney costs. It simply states the city’s long-held position that the LCRA never had the authority to approve or deny sign permits.

The free speech issues likely will be decided this spring when the St. Louis-based federal court issues a ruling in Roos’ ongoing lawsuit against the city’s Board of Adjustment.

“We’re certainly glad the LCRA decided it didn’t need to pursue this any further,” said William Maurer, a Seattle attorney with the Institute for Justice, which is representing Roos. “What we’re really excited about is the ability to pursue the ultimate issue in the case: Can the city shut down a protest using its sign code?”

A September decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals paved the way for Tuesday’s settlement. In that decision, the federal appeals court decided the LCRA “acted under color of state law when it interfered with their constitutionally protected speech in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.”

Matt Moak, associate city counselor, said the city took the 8th Circuit’s opinion as a warning: “Those employees at the LCRA probably shouldn’t have said what they were saying.”

But besides that lesson for the LCRA, there was no reason for the city to keep this particular lawsuit going, he said.

“We’re really trying to focus our efforts on the latter case,” Moak said. “We’d like to see that sign come down. Frankly, we can’t get this resolved soon enough.”

In the remaining federal lawsuit against the city’s Board of Adjustment, both parties are preparing motions for summary judgment. 

“The facts aren’t an issue,” Moak said. “The only issue is can it legally be kept up there.”