• About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • Institutional Subscription
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
Center for Art Law
  • About
    About
    • Mission
    • Team
    • Boards
    • Mentions & Testimonials
    • Institutional Recognition
    • Annual Reports
    • Current & Past Sponsors
    • Contact Us
  • Resources
    Resources
    • Article Collection
    • Podcast: Art in Brief
    • AML and the Art Market
    • Institutional Subscription
    • AI and Art Authentication
    • Newsletter
      Newsletter
      • Subscribe
      • Archives
      • In Brief
    • Art Law Library
    • Movies
    • Nazi-looted Art Restitution Database
    • Global Network
      Global Network
      • Courses and Programs
      • Artists’ Assistance
      • Bar Associations
      • Legal Sources
      • Law Firms
      • Student Societies
      • Research Institutions
    • Additional resources
      Additional resources
      • The “Interview” Project
  • Events
    Events
    • Worldwide Calendar
    • Our Events
      Our Events
      • All Events
      • Annual Conferences
        Annual Conferences
        • 2026 Art Law Conference
        • 2025 Art Law Conference
        • 2024 Art Law Conference
        • 2023 Art Law Conference
        • 2022 Art Law Conference
        • 2015 Art Law Conference
  • Programs
    Programs
    • Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      Visual Artists’ Legal Clinics
      • Art & Copyright Law Clinic
      • Artist-Dealer Relationships Clinic
      • Artist Legacy and Estate Planning Clinic
      • Visual Artists’ Immigration Clinic
    • Summer School
      Summer School
      • 2026
      • 2025
    • Internship and Fellowship
    • Judith Bresler Fellowship
  • Case Law Database
Home image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Our articles image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Art law image/svg+xml 2021 Timothée Giet Beautification Out of the (American Flag) Blue: The Lawsuit That Attempted to Halt the Reflecting Pool Makeover
Back

Beautification Out of the (American Flag) Blue: The Lawsuit That Attempted to Halt the Reflecting Pool Makeover

July 2, 2026

Fig1 Reflecting Pool from Lincoln Mem

The Reflecting Pool with its gray basin in 2006. (Image: Hu Totya, Sept. 18, 2026, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)

By Cara Ianuale

Since the start of the President’s second term, the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to “beautify” the federal landscape.[1] Many of its undertakings have been met with legal challenges:

  • last December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a lawsuit to stop construction on the White House State Ballroom.
  • In February, a group of military veterans and a historic preservationist sued the administration over a proposed triumphal arch dubbed “Arc de Trump.”
  • In March, eight cultural and architectural groups filed a suit against the administration for unauthorized renovations to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, D.C. is among the most recent of federal sites to become the subject of a lawsuit. Earlier this year, the Department of the Interior and President Trump’s plan for the pool made headlines: in addition to undergoing repairs, the pool’s long-maintained gray surface was to be repainted “American flag blue.” In May, The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) sought an injunction to halt the resurfacing; while the project was completed before the court reached a decision, the lawsuit is ongoing. After grounding the suit in the Reflecting Pool’s historical contexts and a brief timeline of the administration’s renovation plans, this article concentrates on the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion filed May 11, 2026 and the Defendants’ Memorandum filed May 18, 2026, concluding with brief updates on the first hearing and post-reopening issues.

History of the Reflecting Pool

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is positioned on a cross-axis of the National Mall, a two mile tree-lined strip stretching from the Capitol Building to the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. The cross-axis was envisioned in 1791 by city planner Pierre Charles L’Enfant, who set out to transform the new capital’s rural landscape into an egalitarian network of wide avenues, squares, and a central “public walk.”[2] The walk took its recognizable form over centuries after its genesis. In 1902, following an unsuccessful post-Civil War attempt at constructing a memorial to Lincoln, the Senate Park Commission proposed placing a new Lincoln Memorial at the west end of the National Mall with a pool; a new bridge would be built between the memorial and Arlington National Cemetery to symbolically link the former Union and Confederate regions.[3] Congress debated the proposal for years, creating the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) in 1910 and a specific Lincoln Memorial Commission in 1911.[4] The pool was completed shortly after the memorial’s dedication in 1922.[5]

Measuring 2,030 by 167 feet, the Reflecting Pool is bookended by the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, modeled after the Parthenon to commemorate Lincoln’s reputed democratic ideals through architectural references to the birthplace of democracy. Until the Trump administration’s renovations, the basin was painted dark gray, giving the surface of the shallow water a sense of depth and a calm, mirror-like quality (fig. 1). The pool quickly became a recognizable feature of the national landscape, present in the backdrop of historic inaugurations, rallies, and events including Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech and Marian Anderson’s performance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

In 2010, the National Park Service (NPS) commissioned the design firm Sasaki to renovate the Reflecting Pool to meet contemporary needs.[6] Seeking to preserve the Mall’s historic characteristics, Sasaki sourced granite from the same quarry used for the Lincoln Memorial. New paths, benches, and security barriers were installed to accommodate high volumes of visitors. The firm also eliminated the use of potable water, reducing annual potable water usage by 21-26 million gallons. The project was completed in 2012. Despite the improvements, however, the pool continued to face challenges including algae blooms, leaks, and broken pipes.[7]

The Renovation Timeline (Leading Up to the Lawsuit)

On April 9, 2026, Trump posted a statement to Truth Social announcing the U.S. Department of the Interior’s renovations to the Reflecting Pool.[8] In an April 23rd press briefing, Trump spoke tangentially about the project underway, remarking that he decided to renovate the pool after a “friend from Germany” commented on its disrepair.[9] He claimed that he was initially informed that repairs would cost $301 million and take three and a half years,[10] but that one contracting company, which he did not name, had given him an estimate of $1.5 million total and one week (which would ensure a fully renovated pool in time for the country’s much-anticipated 250th anniversary).[11] Apparently, the contractor easily convinced him to switch from his originally envisioned turquoise (“like in the Bahamas”) to the American flag blue (fig. 2).[12]

Image teasing the proposed “American Flag Blue” pool, posted to Truth Social on May 1, 2026 by Trump. (Image: Donald J. Trump via TruthSocial)

As the work continued past its projected duration, costs ballooned. Government records show that a $6.9 million no-bid contract was awarded on April 3, 2026 to the Virginia-based company Atlantic Shore Coatings, which had no prior history of federal contracts;[13] another no-bid contract was awarded to Green Water Solutions, led by a Trump donor, for $1.74 million on April 13, 2026.[14] By May 11, the expected cost had increased to $13.1 million.[15] Neither Trump nor the Interior Department publicly divulged their reason for awarding no-bid contracts—reportedly, the administration invoked an exemption meant for emergencies.[16]

The Lawsuit

On May 11, 2026, The Cultural Landscape Foundation filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior claiming that the department bypassed standard review procedures set in place by multiple federal laws, requesting a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the Reflecting Pool renovations. A nonprofit dedicated to the protection of cultural heritage sites, TCLF is represented by the Washington Litigation Group (WLG), a boutique firm established in 2025 to provide legal services to those unlawfully targeted for exercising their rights.

TCLF argues that the resurfacing project requires a standard review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966.[17] The NHPA requires federal agencies to consult with the public, experts, and interested organizations before funding and enacting changes to historic property, defined as any “prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register,”[18] in which the Reflecting Pool is included.[19]

The pool has frequently undergone reviews; ahead of the 2010 rebuilding, the Interior Department under the Obama administration sought approval from the CFA, which has regularly reviewed design elements of the pool since its establishment.[20] The preservation act allows exclusions—under the 2008 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (PA), certain undertakings do not need further consultation, including “[r]epainting in the same color as existing, or in similar colors or historic colors” based on approved reports or color analyses.”[21]

TCLF claims that the PA does not apply to the Trump administration’s proposal, since the blue coating stands to significantly alter the defining reflective character of the Pool, to which the gray color is fundamental. Citing architect James Garland, who has previously worked on projects on the National Mall, they note that dark, colorless hues are the standard for reflecting pool basins because they most effectively absorb the light passing through water, maximizing surface reflectivity.[22] Gray appropriately does not demand attention but “[produces] the authentic, serene reflective quality appropriate to a civic memorial landscape.”[23] To change the gray to blue would be to make an aesthetic change allegedly incompatible with the Reflecting Pool’s original purpose as a mirror, ridding the National Mall of its “seamless, luminous plane” that has characterized it for over a century.[24]

The foundation also alleges that the Interior Department acted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires agencies to assess the environmental consequences of their proposed undertakings; unlike in 2010, the department did not complete a mandatory Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.[25] They warn that the unreviewed overhaul of an enormous water feature in the heart of the capital’s highly trafficked park system has significant potential consequences for the site’s water quality, ecology, and the experiences of millions of visitors.[26]

TCLF identifies multiple irrevocable harms to the public. They stress the loss of a profound memorial experience essentially consistent throughout recent American history, specifically naming TCLF director Charles Birnbaum’s enjoyment of the Reflecting Pool site as a respite from his work. If not halted, they argue, the repainting will degrade the memorial’s dignity, ruining the visiting experience for Birnbaum and millions of others who value its current landscape.[27]

They also allege an irrevocable deprivation of their ability as relevant experts to participate in NHPA and NEPA processes.[28] This inability stands to harm their mission as a foundation to protect the “sacred cultural landscape.”[29] Broadly, they allege that the renovations void the public’s participation rights in deliberations on altering the memorial—and, they state, it is in the public interest to require the government to follow legal procedures.[30]

Considering harms to the Defendants, TCLF claims that an injunction would only cause the Interior Department a temporary delay while the project goes through review procedures—a trivial harm without meaningful financial risk.[31] They conclude,

It has unfortunately grown increasingly common for the federal government to plow ahead with alterations to our nation’s most sacred spaces without following the law. This is not normal. And it is not ok. Plaintiffs respectfully urge the Court to intervene to protect one of the most visible emblems of America’s shared heritage at the heart of our capital.[32]

The Defendant’s Memorandum

According to the Interior Department’s memorandum filed May 18, 2026, the NPS approved the renovations in March of 2026, allegedly undertaken primarily to address the Reflecting Pool’s leakage and water quality issues.[33] According to their declaration, the NPS found that the renovations were routine maintenance and thus excluded from federal review under the PA; moreover, they consulted with a historic landscape architect from the National Capital Regional Office and determined the renovations would not adversely affect the pool. Similarly, they determined that a categorical exclusion to a NEPA review applied because the renovations were routine repairs to an existing feature without adverse effects.[34]

Defendants note that, contrary to the Plaintiffs’ exaggerated claims of a vivid swimming pool blue, the blue-colored lining would be dark and low in chroma, maintaining the signature reflectivity of the pool.[35] Moreover, they suggest that TCLF has a fatal irreparable-harm problem: the pool’s color could later be reversed with additional coating if it is found to be in violation of federal law.[36] They deem Birnbaum’s claim of aesthetic injury insufficient, claiming that his concerns are too hypothetical and are based on inaccurate facts.[37]

They also argue that TCLF did not suffer an Article III injury, providing that, while the foundation could have requested consulting status, as they previously have, it was technically never guaranteed. Without having sufficiently proven a personal stake in the dispute, they failed to show how the Interior Department’s renovations would directly affect their operations.[38] Like the foundation, Defendants maintained that the public did have an interest—not an interest in preserving the gray pool lining, however, but an interest in expedited completion of the repairs. The injunction would “require that the Reflecting Pool be empty, dry, and half-finished through the upcoming celebrations of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence—a significant aesthetic harm to the public.”[39]

The First Hearing and Post-Refilling Controversies

The first hearing was held on May 21st in Washington. Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, appeared reluctant to issue an injunction, questioning TCLF’s claims that the renovations will cause irreversible harms.[40] He posed hypothetical compromises to both sides, asking if it would be possible to undo the renovations should he find the project unlawful. He asked Joseph Mead, the lawyer representing TCLF, if the administration could skip consultations if the result would “[look] really close to how it was before.”[41] Mead stated that Trump himself described the project as a significant change, and that the judge should take the president at his word. The court failed to reach a decision before the renovations were completed on June 3rd, the administration notified the court that the Reflecting Pool had been resurfaced (figs. 3-4).[42] The project had come out to over $16 million.[43]

Resurfacing progress photo showing blue surface color. (Image: G. Edward Johnson, May 15, 2026, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0)
The resurfaced and partially refilled Reflecting Pool. (Image: G. Edward Johnson, Jun. 8, 2026, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0)

The pool’s new look was shortlived. Within two weeks, the water had begun to turn green from algae growth and the blue surface had begun to peel (fig. 5).[44] The President took to Truth Social on June 20th to blame the issues on vandalism, claiming that the pool coating had been slashed and that corrosive chemicals had been poured into the water.[45] Multiple people have reportedly been arrested and cited, including three-time U.S. Olympian David Hearn, who was handcuffed and detained for five hours and faces a misdemeanor charge. He maintains that he merely picked up a piece of dislodged pool coating and that he did not attempt to remove it himself; “[it’s] pretty clear that somebody high up decided to make an example of me,” he stated.[46] No public records have been produced to verify the precise number of those arrested or cited—Timothy Lauer, spokesperson for the United States Attorney’s Office in Washington, told the New York Times that no public docket would be available until court appearances.[47]

Workers cleaning algae from the Reflecting Pool on June 17. (Image: G. Edward Johnson, Jun. 17, 2026, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0)

Ultimately, the Reflecting Pool saga is far from over. With pending court appearances for vandalism charges and continued filings in the lawsuit, legal proceedings show no signs of slowing down. Consult the Cultural Landscape Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Interior docket for continued updates.

About the Author

Cara Ianuale is a recent graduate of Brown University, where she earned degrees in the History of Art & Architecture and English. Her senior thesis in art history explores how artist Sherrie Levine’s solo exhibition of rephotographed images challenges the foundations of copyright. She is broadly interested in the intersection of art and intellectual property, and intends to study law in New York.

 

Select References

  1. Executive Order 14344 of August 28, 2025 “Making Federal Architecture Beautiful Again” designated classical architecture as the “preferred and default” style for federal buildings. It is worth noting that, effecting an increasingly homogenized landscape purportedly built on the revitalization and visual expression of ancient civic values, the order is reminiscent of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s nationalistic adoptions of (neo)classical architecture. ↑
  2. Kenneth R. Fletcher, “A Brief History of Pierre L’Enfant and Washington, D.C.” Smithsonian Magazine (Apr. 30, 2008), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-brief-history-of-pierre-lenfant-and-washington-dc-39487784/, accessed Jun. 23, 2026. ↑
  3. “The Making of the Lincoln Memorial,” National Park Service (n.d.; last upd. May 27, 2026), https://www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/the-making-of-the-lincoln-memorial.htm, accessed Jun. 23, 2026. ↑
  4. Id. ↑
  5. Id. ↑
  6. “Lincoln Memorial Landscape and Reflecting Pool,” Sasaki (n.d.), https://www.sasaki.com/projects/lincoln-memorial-landscape-and-reflecting-pool/, accessed Jun. 23, 2026. ↑
  7. Rachel Treisman, “After D.C.’s Reflecting Pool gets repainted, visitors ask: What changed?” NPR (Jun. 5, 2026 at 17:12 ET), https://www.npr.org/2026/06/05/nx-s1-5847818/reflecting-pool-repaint-refill, accessed Jun. 23, 2026. ↑
  8. Rachel Treisman, “Trump’s ‘American flag blue’ reflecting pool project gets a mixed reaction in D.C.” NPR (Apr. 28, 2026 at 17:04 ET), https://www.npr.org/2026/04/28/nx-s1-5802343/reflecting-pool-resurfacing-blue-trump, accessed Jun. 23, 2026. ↑
  9. Forbes Breaking News, “Trump Goes On Ten-Minute Rant About Plan For Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool ‘Beautification,’” Youtube (Apr. 23, 2026), 1:23, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_Fn5fxW55s. ↑
  10. Id, 2:42. ↑
  11. Id., 3:52, 5:50. ↑
  12. Id., 6:09. ↑
  13. Luke Broadwater and David A. Fahrenthold, “The No-Bid Contract That Is Turning Washington’s Reflecting Pool Blue,” New York Times (May 8, 2026; upd. May 11, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/08/us/politics/reflecting-pool-trump-contract.html, accessed Jun. 23, 2026. ↑
  14. “Contract Summary: Green Water Solutions, LLC” (Award ID: 140P2026C0031), USASpending, https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_140P2026C0031_1443_-NONE-_-NONE-, accessed Jun. 28, 2026. ↑
  15. Luke Broadwater and David A. Fahrenthold, “Reflecting Pool Repairs to Cost $13.1 Million. Trump Had Promised $1.8 Million,” New York Times (May 11, 2026),https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/11/us/politics/reflecting-pool-paint-contract-trump.html?smid=url-share, accessed Jun. 23, 2026. ↑
  16. Id. ↑
  17. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and/or Stay of Agency Action, Cultural Landscape Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1:26-cv-01593, 20 (D.D.C. May 11, 2026) ECF No. 2. ↑
  18. National Historic Preservation Act, 54 U.S.C. § 300308. ↑
  19. National Register of Historic Places, Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., 66000030. ↑
  20. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion, 13. ↑
  21. Nationwide Programmatic Agreement § 106, 54 U.S.C. 300308 at 12. ↑
  22. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion, 10. ↑
  23. Id. ↑
  24. Id., 8. ↑
  25. Id., 14. ↑
  26. Id., 23-24. ↑
  27. Id., 25. ↑
  28. Id., 29. ↑
  29. Id., 28. ↑
  30. Id., 29. ↑
  31. Id., 29. ↑
  32. Id., 31. ↑
  33. Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, and/or Stay of Agency Action, Cultural Landscape Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1:26-cv-01593, 13 (D.D.C. May 18, 2026) ECF No. 12. ↑
  34. Id., 14. ↑
  35. Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion, 26. ↑
  36. Defendants’ Memorandum, 10. ↑
  37. Id., 23. ↑
  38. Id., 24. ↑
  39. Id., 40. ↑
  40. David A. Fahrenthold and Zach Montague, “Judge Appears Hesitant to Order Work Stopped on Reflecting Pool,” New York Times (May 21, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/21/us/politics/reflecting-pool-lawsuit-trump.html, accessed Jun. 27, 2026. ↑
  41. Fahrenthold and Montague, “Judge Appears Hesitant to Order Work Stopped on Reflecting Pool.” ↑
  42. Notice, Cultural Landscape Foundation v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1:26-cv-01593, (D.D.C. Jun. 03, 2026) ECF No. 18. ↑
  43. Miranda Jeyaretnam, “Trump Admin Blames and Arrests Alleged Vandals for Reflecting Pool Problems,” TIME (Jun. 22, 2026 at 7:00 ET; upd. Jun 24, 2026 at 3:45 ET), https://time.com/article/2026/06/22/lincoln-memorial-reflecting-pool-vandalism-algae-paint-trump-admin/, accessed Jun. 27, 2026. ↑
  44. Id. ↑
  45. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Jun. 20, 2026 at 18:36 ET), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116785296448420208. ↑
  46. Jeyaretnam, “Trump Admin Blames and Arrests Alleged Vandals for Reflecting Pool Problems.” ↑
  47. Clarence Williams, “Prosecutors in Washington Say Citations Have Been Issued at Reflecting Pool,” New York Times (Jun. 26, 2026), https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/26/us/politics/reflecting-pool-trump-arrests.html, accessed Jun. 27, 2026. ↑

 

Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.

Post navigation

Previous Selling America’s Sistine Chapel: The Trump Administration’s Effort to Sell Federal Buildings and the Artworks Trapped Inside
Next Art Law at America 250: Gilbert Stuart’s Art Battles and National Imagination

Related Art Law Articles

CfAL fashion copyright tax
Art law

An Alternative to Copyright: How Taxes Might Save Fashion

October 5, 2026
When Beauty has a History Van Gogh Amanda Buonaiuto
Art HistoryArt law

When Beauty Has a History: The Journey of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers to Japan

October 3, 2026
CfAL Louvre Aurelia S
Art HistoryArt lawCultural HeritageLegal Issues in Museum Administration

When Museums Become Crime Scenes: Who Carries the Risk When Art Is Stolen?

October 2, 2026
Center for Art Law
Center for Art Law

Follow us on Instagram for the latest in Art Law!

The Gelman Collection, one of the most significant The Gelman Collection, one of the most significant collections of modern Mexican art, is at the center of an ongoing legal and financial controversy. With works by Frida Kahlo, Diego Rivera, María Izquierdo, and others, the collection raises complex questions about the protections afforded to National Artistic Monuments under Mexican law. 

Paula Gutierrez de Villasante examines what the collection's uncertain future could mean for Mexico’s cultural heritage. 

📚Read the full article at the link in our bio!

#ArtLaw #CulturalHeritage #MexicanArt #FridaKahlo #ArtFinance
Learn about Artist Corporations-- exploring what t Learn about Artist Corporations-- exploring what they are, how they work, and the legal and practical considerations for artists!

Please note, this is a hybrid event. Participants are welcome to attend either in person or online via Zoom..

Join the Center for Art Law for Artist Corporations: A New Legal Framework for Creative Practice, a conversation exploring the Colorado Artist Companies Act and what it could mean for artists, lawyers, policymakers, and the broader creative economy.

In 2025, Colorado enacted Senate Bill 133, creating the Artist Corporation (A-Corp); a first-of-its-kind legal business structure designed specifically to recognize and support artists and creative professionals. The legislation offers a new model for balancing artistic practice with sustainable business and legal protections, raising important questions about how the law can better serve creative communities.

Join us for a discussion featuring Lindsay Korotkin, Yancey Strickler, and Sarah Darlene, who will examine the origins of the Artist Corporation, the legislative process behind its creation, and its practical implications for working artists. Drawing on their respective backgrounds in law, advocacy, entrepreneurship, and artistic practice, the panelists will discuss how this innovative legal framework came to fruition, how artists may benefit from it, and whether similar legislation could shape the future of creative industries beyond Colorado.

Following the panel discussion, attendees will have the opportunity to participate in a live audience Q&A as well as a Networking Reception. 

🎟️ Grab your tickets today using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #colorado #artistissues
For more than two decades, thousands of counterfei For more than two decades, thousands of counterfeit works attributed to Canadian Anishinaabe artist Norval Morrisseau circulated through galleries, auctions, and private collections. The resulting forgery scandal has made authenticating Morrisseau’s work increasingly difficult and raised larger questions about protecting artists' legacies and the integrity of the art market. 

In her article, Victoria Cook examines the history of the Morrisseau forgery ring and how emerging technologies could help distinguish genuine works from fakes. 

📚 Read the full article at the link in our bio!

1st 📷: Norval Morrisseau, Observations of the Astral World (c. 1994), acrylic on canvas, 236 x 514 cm, National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa

#ArtLaw #ArtForgery #NorvalMorrisseau #IndigenousArt #CanadianArt
Don't miss grabbing tickets for our upcoming Collo Don't miss grabbing tickets for our upcoming Colloquium with Dr Michail Risvas, Lecturer in Law and Co-Director of the Centre for International Law and Globalisation at the University of Southampton, on the growing role of arbitration in the art and cultural heritage sector. 

Drawing on his research and practical examples, Professor Risvas will examine how arbitration is being used to resolve a broad range of art-related and cultural heritage disputes. The program will compare arbitration with traditional litigation, exploring the advantages and limitations of each forum.

Through discussion of case examples and emerging trends, participants will gain a practical understanding of when arbitration may offer a more effective path than litigation and how alternative dispute resolution is shaping the future of art and cultural heritage law.

🎟️ Grab your tickets today using the link in our bio!!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #artlawyer #lawyer #arbitration #artmarket #artist #culturalheritage
Join the Center for Art Law along with Dr Michail Join the Center for Art Law along with Dr Michail Risvas, Lecturer in Law and Co-Director of the Centre for International Law and Globalisation at the University of Southampton, on the growing role of arbitration in the art and cultural heritage sector. Drawing on his research and practical examples, Professor Risvas will examine how arbitration is being used to resolve a broad range of art-related and cultural heritage disputes. The program will compare arbitration with traditional litigation, exploring the advantages and limitations of each forum.

Through discussion of case examples and emerging trends, participants will gain a practical understanding of when arbitration may offer a more effective path than litigation and how alternative dispute resolution is shaping the future of art and cultural heritage law.

🎟️ Grab your tickets today using the link in our bio!!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #legal #artlawyer #lawyer #arbitration #artmarket #artist #culturalheritage
And just like that, we’ve reached the end of an in And just like that, we’ve reached the end of an inaugural ART & LAW INTENSIVE ✨

Five-day program filled with challenging questions, fascinating discussions, new perspectives, and meaningful encounters at the intersection of visual art and law.

Grateful for the conversations, the knowledge shared, and everyone who made this experience so enriching. 

Until the next chapter in February!
Our last (August) newsletter received excellent vi Our last (August) newsletter received excellent viewing (in September). Welcome back from vacations! You may be pleased to know that our ART x LAW INTENSIVE in Zurich went as promised and we were delighted to have shared with and learned from so many wonderful experts, colleagues, and fellow travelers. Special guests came from North and South America, across Europe, even India and UAE. Without skipping a beat, today we onboard our Fall 2026 Interns, students from Cardozo, NYU, Smith College and other schools, and we are pleased to welcome our 2026-2027 Judith Bresler Fellow, Alexander Stanfield.

Please take a look at our SEPTEMBER newsletter and plan to join us this fall for in person or online events. Thank you to all who have reached out and offered to volunteer over the summer and recently. We are humbled by the growing interest and will keep offering learning and hands-on opportunities as the size of our organization permits. Stay calm and … 

📚 Click the link in our bio to get a curated collection of art law news, our most recent published articles, upcoming events, and much more!!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #newsletter #september #legalresearch
What does it take to report and write a story abou What does it take to report and write a story about stolen art, war, and the people caught at the center of it?

In our latest episode of Art in Brief, Andrea and Paris are joined by Matthew Campbell, award-winning reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek and author of The Man Who Stole the Gods, to discuss his years-long investigation into the looting and trafficking of ancient Khmer artifacts from Cambodia.

We talk about Matthew’s research and reporting process, why he chose to center the story around the book’s main characters, and how he approached telling the stories of complicated figures with nuance and empathy.

🎙️ Listen to the latest episode of Art in Brief and find additional resources including a link to Matthew's book at the link in our bio!

#podcast #centerforartlaw #artinbrief #bloomberg #artcrime
What happens to an artist’s work, archives, and in What happens to an artist’s work, archives, and intellectual property after they’re gone? 

Day 2 of the 2026 CPAL Conference brought together lawyers, appraisers, foundation leaders, and arts professionals to tackle the practical realities of preserving artists’ legacies. Topics included estate planning and appraisals, copyright, archives, and the financial realities of running an artist foundation. One message was especially clear: legacy preservation starts long before an artist’s death. 

📚Read Ian Silverstein’s recap of the conference at the link in our bio!

#WYWH #ArtLaw #ArtistEstates #ArtLawConference #ArtAndLaw
Don't miss out on our upcoming Workshop on fiducia Don't miss out on our upcoming Workshop on fiduciary duties within artist-dealer relationships with speaker Aaron Haines!

This workshop will explore the fiduciary duties of gallerists toward their clients and will clarify the distinctions between contract-based relationships and the broader fiduciary obligations gallerists owe, including transparency, prudence, and the prohibition of undisclosed profits. It will also examine common conflicts of interest in the art world and how these fiduciary duties come into play. 

🎟️ Grab your tickets today using the link in our bio!

#centerforartlaw #artlaw #artlawyer #legalresearch #legal #workshop #artistrights #artist #artdealer
The Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building in Washington The Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building in Washington, D.C. houses five murals and four reliefs by artists including Ben Shahn and Philip Guston. 
The building is now among federal properties currently slated for sale as the government accelerates selling federal real estate. 

What happens to artworks that are physically inseparable from the buildings they were created for? And what does their uncertain future mean for America’s cultural landscape?

📚 Read Sam Brady-Myerov’s latest article at the link in our bio!

#ArtLaw #CenterforArtLaw #NewDealArt #PublicArt #CulturalHeritage
Did you know the portrait of George Washington on Did you know the portrait of George Washington on the $1 bill traces back to a painting by Gilbert Stuart? 

As the US celebrates its 250th anniversary, one of our latest articles explores how Stuart fought to control the reproduction of his Washington portraits at a time when U.S. copyright law did not yet protect paintings. 

📚 Read the full article by Hannah Gadway at the link in our bio! 

#ArtLaw #America250 #GilbertStuart #GeorgeWashington #CopyrightLaw
  • About the Center
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletter
  • Upcoming Events
  • Internship
  • Case Law Database
  • Log in
  • Become a Member
  • Donate
DISCLAIMER

Center for Art Law is a New York State non-profit fully qualified under provision 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code.

The Center does not provide legal representation. Information available on this website is
purely for educational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.

TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY

Your use of the Site (as defined below) constitutes your consent to this Agreement. Please
read our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy carefully.

© 2026 Center for Art Law

Become a Member

Since 2009, the Center for Art Law has organized hundreds of events and published over 1,200 relevant, accessible, and editorially independent articles. As a nonprofit working with artists and students, the Center for Art Law relies on your support to fund our work. Become a premium subscriber and gain access to discounts on events and archives of articles and/or hundreds of case summaries, intended for a worldwide audience of legal professionals, artists, researchers, and students.

Camille Pissarro, Rue St Honoré, apres midi, effet de pluie, 1897

Camille Pissarro, Rue St Honoré, apres midi, effet de pluie, 1897

$70 /per year

Case Law Corner

See All Benefits

Read case law summaries and enjoy unlimited access to our legendary Case Law Corner, now in a new and improved Database with over 700 entries.

Get this subscription
$75 /per year

Artist & Student Membership

See All Benefits
  • Access to all articles and past-event recordings
  • Access to our Case Law Database
  • Free and discounted access to events
Get this subscription
$150 /per year

Annual Subscription

See All Benefits
  • Access to all articles and past-event recordings
  • Access to Case Law Database
  • Free and discounted access to events
  • Discounts to third-party events
Get this subscription
Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.