Skip to main content
Wednesday, November 11, 2026Nov 11

Judge rejects effort to reinstall painting in Capitol

FILE - In this Jan. 5, 2017 file photo, a painting by Missouri artist David Pulphus hangs in a hallway displaying paintings by high school students selected by their member of congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. A federal judge has rejected efforts to reinstall in the Capitol a painting some lawmakers and police groups found offensive. Pulphus and Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., had sued Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers for removing the painting in January.  (AP Photo/Zach Gibson, File)
FILE - In this Jan. 5, 2017 file photo, a painting by Missouri artist David Pulphus hangs in a hallway displaying paintings by high school students selected by their member of congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. A federal judge has rejected efforts to reinstall in the Capitol a painting some lawmakers and police groups found offensive. Pulphus and Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., had sued Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers for removing the painting in January. (AP Photo/Zach Gibson, File) FILE - In this Jan. 5, 2017 file photo, a painting by Missouri artist David Pulphus hangs in a hallway displaying paintings by high school students selected by their member of congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. A federal judge has rejected efforts to reinstall in the Capitol a painting some lawmakers and police groups found offensive. Pulphus and Rep. William Clay, D-Mo., had sued Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers for removing the painting in January. (AP Photo/Zach Gibson, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) – A federal judge has rejected efforts to reinstall in the Capitol a painting some lawmakers and police groups found offensive.

David Pulphus, a student artist from Missouri, and Rep. William Clay, his Democratic congressional representative, had sued Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers for removing the painting in January.

The painting, which shows what appears to be a pig in a police uniform, divided members of Congress for its depiction of Ferguson, Missouri.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates says the government has used its editorial discretion in the selection and presentation of the art.

As a result, it’s engaging in “government speech” and the plaintiffs have no First Amendment right to display the painting.