Thank goodness for victories big and small. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that a federal judge has rejected Democratic Congressman William Lacy Clay's legal filing to reinstall a highly offensive painting on a wall connecting the U.S. Capitol with a House office building.

The painting, as you may recall, depicts police officers as pigs, and Clay's attempt to lionize it reveals the depraved priorities and worldview of much of the Congressional Black Caucus, particularly as it concerns law enforcement members. The Post-Dispatch provides details: 

John D. Bates, a judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that “Untitled #1,” a painting by former Cardinal Ritter College Prep student David Pulphus, was government speech, and therefore was legally removed by members of Congress who objected to its content. [...]

“There is little doubt that the removal of the painting was based on its viewpoint,” Bates wrote in his decision issued Friday.

But, he added: “Although the Court is sympathetic to plaintiffs given the treatment afforded Pulphus’ art, under controlling authority this case involves government speech, and hence plaintiffs have no First Amendment rights at stake.”

Clay, D-St. Louis, had sought an injunction against removal of the painting by the Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers. Pulphus’ painting was taken down on several occasions by Republican members of Congress, who said the art demeaned police and gave a false narrative of what happened in Ferguson. Ayers removed it in January after a formal complaint from Republicans.

Pulphus, now in college, has said the art “speaks for itself” as the experiences of a young black man seeing reports of the shooting deaths of black men by police.

Republicans successfully argued that the painting violated the annual art contest’s prohibition of art reflecting “subjects of contemporary political controversy,” or of “sensationalistic or gruesome nature.”

There was no immediate reaction from Clay on Monday. A lawyer who argued the case pro bono for Clay was on vacation in Hawaii and also did not comment.

And Bates said the fact that Clay did not establish that the Capitol tunnel was public space led to a legal finding that the painting constituted government speech, which does not have the protection of individuals’ speech.

Bates noted Clay’s unique position in the case: His lawsuit argued for a constituent’s First Amendment right, but Clay is also a member of the government that, the judge declared, had the right to take down the painting.

The judge added that House members, "by whatever method of judging they choose, select one winning piece from among the multiple works submitted to represent the district, but their choice may be overruled by the AOC if it concludes that the work does not meet the suitability guidelines."