Judge Rules in Favor of New Hampshire Bakery in Fight Over Donut Mural
Conway, New Hampshire's attempt to force a local bakery to take down the mural "does not withstand any level of constitutional scrutiny," a judge ruled this week.

A New Hampshire bakery has won a crucial victory in its fight to preserve a mural of donuts and other baked goods above its storefront. While town officials have attempted to force the bakery to remove the mural, citing zoning regulations, a federal court ruled on Monday that the city cannot enforce its sign rules against the bakery.
In 2022, Sean Young, the owner of Leavitt's Country Bakery, a popular bakery in Conway, New Hampshire, collaborated with a local high school art class to paint a mural for the bakery's storefront. The students' mural depicted baked goods forming the shape of a mountain range, with a multicolored sunrise in the background. Initially, the mural didn't cause any controversy—and it was even covered positively by local media. However, about a week after being installed, Conway's Code Enforcement Officer Jeremy Gibbs told Young that the mural violated town zoning rules.
According to the town, the mural violated local laws that regulate signs. Because the mural depicted baked goods—which the bakery obviously sells—it was deemed a "sign," not a mural, and signs are subject to rules limiting their size. While the town's rules define a sign incredibly broadly, in practice, the town only enforces its sign regulations on speech it perceives as commercial in nature. If Leavitt's Country Bakery had erected a mural of just a sunrise, for example, the town would have no problem with it, even though the rules on the books would apply to both. "Imposing different burdens on speech depending on who is speaking and what is being said is content based and speaker based restriction on free speech," reads a 2023 complaint from the Institute for Justice, a public interest law group, which represented the bakery in its lawsuit against Conway.
On Monday, a judge agreed. While the judge noted that the town's sign rules, as written, don't necessarily violate the Constitution, the selective nature of the town's enforcement does. "The court rules only that Conway's application of its sign code, and specifically its enforcement of the sign code to the Leavitt's sign in the particular manner it employed in this case, does not withstand any level of constitutional scrutiny," reads a ruling from District Judge Joseph N. Laplante enjoining the town from forcing Young to remove the mural. "Although the display may have violated the sign code because of its size, Gibbs' determination was based on a rationale with no textual basis in the sign code, which does not distinguish between displays based on content."
The ruling is a major victory for the bakery's ability to paint a mural on its own property—without government meddling. "Towns can certainly regulate signs. They can regulate the size of signs or the number of signs permitted, but what they can't do is pick and choose what signs to regulate based on what they depict," Institute for Justice Attorney Betsy Sanz said in a Monday press release. "Today's ruling makes it clear that what Conway was doing was discriminating against certain signs based on what officials thought they depicted. And that's a clear First Amendment violation."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Don’t dunk on the donut shop.
Looks like the IJ found a hole in their zoning code.
I bet the ruling really frosted their asses.
Clearly a case of "we don't want to do our actual job so let's go after something else" And hate to say it, but this Article is also that.
A donut shop ? In New Hampshire ? Don't you have some clothes to wash? mabye mow the lawn ?
A donut shop !! in New Hampshire?
It's the Institute for Justice. They do good work. I'd rather see these articles than sob stories about getting FAFSA money.
Agreed.
This is a tiny victory but a libertarian outcome and good on Emma for reporting on it.
Does the picture speak or identify-as a particular race, color, religion or national origin or what? It's great to see government power get curbed in general but it's rather bogus this was handled at the federal level. Does the 1A say there can't be any legislation about public pictures now or what?
Any gentlemen's clubs in that town?
I wonder if they are working on new signs. I mean, murals.
I'm so glad New Hampshire is dedicating their time to this instead of rounding up any border jumpers and deporting them.
Priorities, y'know?