## Facts

- Ron Klenk owned a building in Charleston’s Old and Historic District and commissioned Dr. Robert Burke to paint an exterior mural visible from King Street.
- Burke painted over a prior mural and began work without first obtaining approval from the City’s Board of Architectural Review (BAR).
- Charleston’s historic-preservation ordinance authorized the BAR to regulate exterior features within the district to maintain an architecturally harmonious environment.
- After work began, the BAR issued a stop-work order; Klenk applied for permission to display the mural.
- The BAR denied the application as “garish and out of keeping with the historic area.”
- Burke sued the City alleging that applying the ordinance to bar the mural violated the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection).
- After a bench trial, the district court reached the merits and ruled for the City.
- On appeal, the City argued, among other defenses, that Burke lacked standing.

## Issues

1. Whether Burke, as the mural’s artist who had sold the commissioned work to the building owner, had Article III standing to challenge the permit denial as a First Amendment violation.
2. Whether applying the historic-preservation ordinance to prohibit the mural violated the First Amendment (not reached).

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held Burke lacked Article III standing to bring the First Amendment claim.
- The court reasoned that Burke relinquished any legally protected interest in the mural’s display when ownership passed to Klenk, who alone had the right to display it.
- Because the alleged injury concerned the mural’s display, and Burke lacked a legally cognizable interest in that display, he failed to show an injury in fact.
- The court also found redressability lacking because a favorable decision would primarily benefit Klenk, and Burke could not compel the mural’s display.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability; the injury must involve a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized.
- For First Amendment standing in disputes over a specific expressive work, the legally protected interest may turn on ownership and control of the work’s display.
- When a plaintiff has transferred ownership and lacks control over whether the expression is displayed, the plaintiff generally cannot establish injury in fact from government action restricting display.
- A claim fails redressability when the requested judicial relief would not directly remedy the plaintiff’s asserted harm because any operative right or practical benefit belongs to a third party.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, holding that an artist who sold a commissioned mural lacked standing to challenge a permit denial restricting its display because the right to display the mural, and any injury from the denial, belonged to the property owner rather than the artist.


Burke v. City of Charleston, 139 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 1998)