In 2007, the City of St. Louis told property rights activist Jim Roos to take down his mural citing code violations against large signs. Roos, a property owner, has been battling the city for years over eminent domain.

He argued that his political statment was art. He got the libertarian Institute for Justice to take his case.

Yesterday, the court ruled against Roos and the Institute. From St. Louis Today:

Monday, U.S. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey rejected that argument, saying the mural — which featured the addresses of two affiliated websites — is a "classic example" of the definition of a sign.

"The painting is outside and is used to advertise, identify, direct and attract attention to what petitioners believe is eminent domain abuse. It advertises online addresses for more information," Autrey wrote. "It attracts attention to the perceived eminent domain abuse."

Autrey also ruled that the city's sign ordinance is constitutional because it is "content neutral" — restrictions on signs are based on size and place, not subject

Roos was represented by the Institute for Justice, an Arlington, Va.-based libertarian advocacy group. Lawyers for the group seized on a clause in the city's sign code that exempts art, as well as flags and fraternal crests, from the restrictions on signs.

Roos and the Institute for Justice intend to appeal the ruling.

Further info - Institute for Justice, http://www.ij.org