Bureaucrats, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, sysadmin, Administrators
1,588
edits
Capitol Hill Painting: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|confronting_bodies=Republican Representatives | |confronting_bodies=Republican Representatives | ||
|medium=Painting | |medium=Painting | ||
|date_of_action=January 2017- | |date_of_action=January 2017- December 2018 | ||
|location=Washington D.C. | |location=Washington D.C. | ||
|description_of_content=The painting, “Untitled #1,” was created by St. Louis, MO high school student David Pulphus following the police-shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the acrylic piece depicts law enforcement officers as animals. | |description_of_content=The painting, “Untitled #1,” was created by St. Louis, MO high school student David Pulphus following the police-shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the acrylic piece depicts law enforcement officers as animals. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
In mid April, a federal court ruled against artist David Pulphus and Democratic Missouri Congressman William Lacy Clay. This final judgement is a victory for the Republican representatives who opposed the painting and wished to have it permanently removed. | In mid April, a federal court ruled against artist David Pulphus and Democratic Missouri Congressman William Lacy Clay. This final judgement is a victory for the Republican representatives who opposed the painting and wished to have it permanently removed. | ||
In May, Pulphus and Congressman Clay filed an appeal. The case was argued in September, and on Nov. 30, 2018, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the lawsuit as moot because the 2016 art competition—and its corresponding Capitol exhibition have ended—so there was no longer any injury for the court to redress. In its opinion in Pulphus v. Ayers, the court rejected Pulphus’s arguments that the case continues to present a live controversy, finding the case moot. | |||
|image=Screen Shot 2017-06-12 at 3.38.24 PM.png | |image=Screen Shot 2017-06-12 at 3.38.24 PM.png | ||
}} | }} | ||