Addison Thompson v. United States, et al.

In 2014, a photographic mural project was destroyed during the relocation of the Peter Stuyvesant United States Postal Service (USPS), New York. The USA/USPS was granted sovereign immunity and dismissal of the Visual Artists' Rights (VARA) case by a misinterpretation of the word "State" in the Copyright Law. At the hearing in 2017, Honorable Judge Katherine Polk Failla, instituted a process for the proper exhaustion of the claim, to allow the artist to recreate and reinstall his murals. The USPS is authorized to enter into an agreement with the copyright owner in full settlement and for the damages accruing to him by reason of such infringement (or destruction) and to settle the claim administratively out of available appropriations.

1. The Constitution mandates Congress to grant artists' the rights to their work. So why is the USA immune from violating an artists' "exclusive rights", when "anyone" who violates these rights, is liable?

2. Is the word "State", in the definitions section of the Copyright Act, limited to the States of the United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico or does it mean any governmental "State"?

3. If this misinterpretation of the word "State" is corrected would Plaintiff pass the two-part test? The legal test to determine whether sovereign immunity applies is (1) "whether there is a waiver of sovereign immunity for actions against the" United States or the agency in question and (2) whether the substantive provisions of the federal statute apply to the United States or the agency in question.

4. Why was there no new hearing, for the USPS to explain why they changed their mind, about permitting the artist to recreate and install his murals at Peter Cooper USPS, NYC, in full settlement of his VARA claim and as a proper exhaustion of the claim?