It was and is all the rage in these parts to consign statues of traitorous Confederate soldiers who fought for slavery to the dustbin of history. Two such monuments were justly taken from public view in Henry and Newton Counties last year. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, already named for the losers, pitched yet another battle, and sued the counties to put the monuments to hate back up. They lost on a few grounds, the lead one being that they lacked standing because rather than suffering concrete or particularized injury, their alleged harm was “purely psychic.” The Court of Appeals affirmed, probably not at all influenced by the fact that the Sons used the phrase “War Between the States” to support their argument. Characterizations of historical figures here are statements of my opinions. There are some more opinions on the blog.
This case, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Newton County, is actually three cases involving relatively identical facts in two Georgia counties, Henry and Newton. Each county decided that monuments honoring pro-slavery traitors were best displayed inside storage facilities. The plaintiffs did not like this and filed a variety of claims. Ultimately their claims were dismissed on a few grounds, with the one most relevant here being standing.
OCGA § 50-3-1 (b) (3) states that public monuments cannot “be relocated, removed, concealed, obscured, or altered in any fashion by any officer or agency.” OCGA § 50-3-1 (b) (4), as explained by the Court, “subjects the responsible party to treble damages, potential exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees and court costs.” Plaintiffs proceeded under OCGA § 50-3-1 (b) (5), which states “any person, group, or legal entity shall have a right to bring a cause of action for any conduct prohibited by this Code section for damages as permitted by this Code section.” Plaintiffs contended they had standing under that section. Neither the trial courts nor the Court of Appeals agreed.
The opinion focused on the “injury in fact” element of standing. Citing numerous authorities, the Court stated “An ‘injury in fact’ is one that is both ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Continuing along these lines, “The injury must also be ‘concrete,’ or put another way, it must ‘actually exist’ and be ‘real,’ not ‘abstract.”
What did the descendants of pro-slavery soldiers who fought against our country offer up? “their dedication to ‘honor[ing] the memories and legacies of their forefathers who fought for freedom during the War Between the States’ or assert that they ‘will suffer injury to [their]rights and dignity.” The Court agreed with Newton and Henry Counties that “their injuries are ‘purely psychic’ and neither concrete nor particularized.”
Sometimes its just fun when the good guys win.
GEORGIA LEGAL UPDATE 