In this particular case a building owner by the name of Jim Roos protested St. Louis’s continuance of eminent domain abuse. The city wanted to push out property owners and make use of their location. Jim Roos was fed up with the continuance of eminent domain in Missouri, and decided to have a mural painted on his personal property protesting the city’ abuse as well as demanding reform. The city objectified to the mural and demanded that it be removed. However, the Institute for Justice intervened and argued that Roos was protected by his First Amendment and protesting the government was in the realm of his constitutional rights, the courts agreed and mural remains. This case was actually surprising to me. The mere fact that the city thought they had a right to objectify to someone’s freedom of speech because it didn’t favor their ideations was crazy. If the court ruled in favor of the city, it would open the door for the government to dictate how we should display our personal