## Facts

- The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) commissioned sculptor Richard Serra to create *Tilted Arc* for the federal plaza at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan under a federal art program.
- Serra designed a large curved steel wall intended as a site-specific work whose meaning depended on its placement at that plaza.
- Under the contract, Serra received full payment and legal title to the sculpture passed to the United States.
- After installation, the sculpture generated significant public opposition, including complaints that it obstructed movement and reduced the plaza’s usability.
- The GSA conducted a public process and decided to remove the sculpture, stating the decision was based on functional concerns rather than the work’s content or appearance.
- Serra sued, alleging the removal violated his First Amendment rights and his Fifth Amendment due process rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the GSA, and Serra appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s removal of a government-owned, site-specific sculpture from a federal plaza violates the artist’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
2. Whether the removal decision and procedures violated due process by depriving the artist of a protected property or liberty interest in the sculpture’s continued display at the original site.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the GSA.
- The court held that removal of *Tilted Arc* did not violate the First Amendment because Serra had transferred ownership to the government, which could possess, use, and dispose of its property.
- The court treated the removal as content-neutral and justified by significant governmental interests in the plaza’s function and accessibility.
- The court held Serra lacked a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in the sculpture’s continued placement at Federal Plaza; therefore, no due process violation occurred.

## Legal Principles

- When an artist sells an expressive work to the government without reserving contractual control over display or location, the government’s ownership includes the right to remove or relocate the work.
- Government action affecting display of government-owned art does not, without more, constitute unconstitutional suppression of private speech; content-neutral, function-based decisions may be analyzed as permissible time, place, or manner regulation.
- Due process protections require a cognizable property or liberty interest; absent a contractual or other recognized entitlement to continued display at a specific site, no due process claim lies.
- An asserted interest in artistic reputation or integrity, standing alone, was not recognized here as a liberty interest that constrains the government’s disposition of its own property.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that because the United States owned *Tilted Arc* and the removal decision was treated as content-neutral and function-driven, the artist had no First Amendment right to keep the sculpture installed at the original site and no due process claim absent a protected property or liberty interest in its continued placement.


Serra v. U.S. Gen. Servs. Admin., 847 F.2d 1045 (2d Cir. 1988)