In September 2004 the owners were sued by the city to replace the wall. [[US District Court]] Judge Deborah Batts threw out the initial defense by the owners that the wall was an infringement of their First Amendment rights.
In May of 2005, however, Judge Batts ruled that the City was violating the owners' 5th Amendment rights and the city cannot force the owners to maintain the wall. However, if the city did decide to go through with an order to replace the wall, it would owe the owners fair compensation for the wall's construction.<ref>{{cite news|first=Ronda|last=Kaysen|title=Judge’s roadblock to 'Wall' return|url=http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_106/judgesroadblockto.html|work=Downtown Express|publisher=Community Media, LLC.|date=[[2006-05-20]]|accessdate=2007-04-23}}</ref>
In April of 2007, the City and owners announced a deal whereby the exterior of the building would be increased by 30 feet so the artwork could be installed higher, allowing for street level [[advertising]] space.<ref>{{cite news|first=Chris|last=Bragg|title=High, bright, 'The Wall' will return to Soho wall|url=http://thevillager.com/villager_207/highbrightthewall.html|work=The Villager|Publisher=Community Media, LLC.|date=[[2007-04-18]]|accessdate=2007-04-23}}</ref> Without the artwork, the owners estimated that the wall could generate up to $600,000 in advertising [[revenue]] a year.
