## Facts

- Dayton Claudio, a California artist, sought permission from the General Services Administration (GSA) to display an “art exhibit” in the main lobby of the Raleigh Federal Building under the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act.
- Claudio requested use of a specified lobby wall and was granted a revocable license to exhibit art from May 4–29, 1992; GSA did not request details about the exhibit’s subject.
- After installation, Claudio unveiled a crucifix-shaped painting depicting a nude woman, a fetus, and a coat hanger.
- GSA’s field office manager immediately revoked the license, stating the display was political expression about abortion and not permitted on federal property.
- On administrative review, GSA affirmed the revocation, citing the work’s abortion theme while related matters were being addressed in federal courts in the building, and concerns about disruption and potential property damage.
- Claudio sued the United States, GSA, and GSA officials (in official and individual capacities), alleging the removal violated the First Amendment.
- In earlier proceedings, the court ruled the lobby was a nonpublic forum and granted qualified immunity to the officials in their individual capacities; the remaining dispute concerned official-capacity claims and agency liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the Raleigh Federal Building lobby is a nonpublic forum for First Amendment purposes.
2. Whether revocation of Claudio’s display license violated the First Amendment in a nonpublic forum, including whether the action was reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
3. Whether asserted governmental interests in decorum, neutrality (given ongoing abortion-related litigation in the building), and preventing disruption justified removing the painting.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the remaining official-capacity claims.
- The court reaffirmed that the federal building lobby was a nonpublic forum.
- The court held the removal decision was reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and was not viewpoint discrimination.
- The court concluded the revocation did not violate the First Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- In a nonpublic forum, the government may impose content-based restrictions if they are reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose and not an effort to suppress a speaker’s viewpoint.
- Government acting as property manager may control expressive activity on its premises to preserve institutional neutrality and order, particularly in facilities housing courts and other sensitive governmental functions.
- Viewpoint neutrality turns on whether the restriction targets a particular stance within a subject; subject-matter limits may be permissible if applied without hostility to a viewpoint and supported by reasonable administrative considerations.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Raleigh Federal Building lobby was a nonpublic forum and that GSA reasonably and viewpoint-neutrally revoked Claudio’s license to display an abortion-themed painting to preserve neutrality and prevent disruption in a courthouse-adjacent setting, so summary judgment was entered for the government on the remaining claims.


Claudio v. United States, 836 F. Supp. 1230 (E.D.N.C. 1993)