Did the Town of Palm Beach violate Burns's First Amendment rights by denying his proposed home design based solely on aesthetics when the design met all objective zoning criteria?

QUESTION PRESENTED This case is about the extent to which the First Amendment applies to residential architecture. Donald Burns wanted to replace his Palm Beach home with a new home in the International Style — which conveys minimalism, individuality, and the pursuit of fulfillment in harmony with nature — to reflect his persona as someone not tied to tradition. His final design met all objective zoning requirements. But Palm Beach’s Architectural Review Commission rejected it based solely on aesthetics. Burns challenged this decision on First Amendment grounds. The district court, however, rejected the claim and the majority opinion of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed over a strenuous dissent. Though this Court has analyzed the First Amendment’s reach in a variety of contexts, it has not yet done so with respect to residential architecture. So Burns now asks the Court to consider this issue: Did the Town of Palm Beach violate Burns’s First Amendment rights by denying his proposed home design based solely on aesthetics when the design met all objective zoning criteria?