Two Key West residents have taken the city to court after being hit with a $250-a-day fine for painting rainbow pickets on their fence, arguing the penalty tramples their constitutional rights. They say the paint job began as a protest after state-ordered rainbow crosswalks were removed, and the ACLU has stepped in, calling the city’s enforcement selective and politically motivated. The dispute raises hard questions about property, free expression, and whether local rules are being applied fairly in Old Town.
Nicole Sohn and her wife, Linda Bagely-Sohn, say what started as a spontaneous act of protest turned into a legal battle when neighbors complained and the Historic Architectural Review Commission stepped in. The neighborhood effort was their direct response to the crosswalk controversy and meant to be a simple public statement by homeowners. “It was so upsetting for so many of us, and I woke up one morning and was like, ‘I’m going to paint some pickets on our front gate,'” Sohn said.
The couple say they tried to play by the rules by seeking approval after the paint drew attention, but their permit requests were denied and they were ordered to repaint the fence in an approved color. Instead of a one-time warning, the city imposed a looming daily fine that now forms the backbone of their lawsuit. That $250-per-day threat pushed the couple to take legal action to force a clarification of their rights and the city’s enforcement standards.
Their complaint centers on a claim of viewpoint discrimination, arguing that the city is selectively enforcing design rules against this particular message. “If the city is only enforcing the law against some people because of the message they’re expressing, that’s viewpoint discrimination.” The ACLU of Florida has taken up the case, saying officials may be targeting the message rather than applying rules neutrally.
From a Republican perspective, this situation reads like a classic example of government overreach where municipal rules are wielded as a tool to silence a viewpoint on private property. Property owners painted their own fence on their own property, and when rules are enforced unevenly or used to police expression, it undermines the predictability citizens need. The real issue here is not the color itself but whether the state has the right to selectively decide which private expressions are acceptable.
The couple say their small neighborhood campaign caught on because others joined in, and what began as a joke on social media turned into a visible statement across Old Town. “We posted on Facebook as a joke, like, ‘Anyone else want the rainbow fairy to come visit?'” she added. That organic community response is central to their claim: local residents expressing views through their own homes, not a public billboard or government property.
Key West officials reportedly notified the couple after receiving multiple complaints and told them to repaint or face the accumulating fines, but city spokespeople declined to comment on the pending litigation. The lawsuit gives the city a short window to respond, and meanwhile the fines continue to hang over the homeowners. This gap between complaint and enforcement is precisely where accusations of unequal treatment take root.
The case will test where lines are drawn between local aesthetics rules and constitutional protections for expression on private property, and it will force a court to decide whether enforcement was neutral or targeted. For residents who expect a predictable application of local codes, selective fines feel less like regulation and more like a political veto. The outcome could matter beyond one fence, setting a precedent for how far municipal design rules can reach into everyday speech and property rights.
