I am Tom Freeland, a lawyer in Oxford, Mississippi. The picture in the header is my law office. I'm on Twitter as NMissC

Missing Posts: If you have a link to a post that's not here or are looking for posts from Summer of 2010, check this page.

BlogRoll

Notes on the Confederate Memorial Lawsuit: What the statute says

Miss. Code. Ann. § 55-15-81 is the statute the Sons of Confederate Veterans relies upon. Relating to “Any Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, War Between the States, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Persian Gulf War, War in Iraq or Native American War’s”, the statute provides:

(1) None of the following items, structures or areas may be relocated, removed, disturbed, altered, renamed or rededicated: …statues, monuments, memorials or nameplates (plaques), which have been erected on public property of the state or any of its political subdivisions, … such as local, municipal or county owned public areas, and any statues, monuments, memorials, nameplates (plaques), schools, streets, bridges, buildings, parks preserves, reserves or other public items, structure… which have been dedicated in memory of, or named for, any historical military figure, historical military event, military organization or military unit.

So. A series of “items” “on public property” may not be “removed… renamed.”  Those items include “nameplates (plaques)” and “streets…”

That clearly suggest that nameplates and streets cannot be removed or renamed when on public property.  And nameplates or plaques can’t be “altered.”

I cannot imagine that a court would hold that the addition of explanatory plaques would be barred by this statute, but I assume that is what the SCV will argue.

What can’t be removed, renamed, or altered? Those “which have been dedicated to the memory of or named for, any historical military figure, historical military event, military organization or military unit.”  Hmmm.  The Confederate statute is certainly “dedicated to the memory of… any military organization or military unit”– it’s all about the University Grays, isn’t it?  But what about Confederate Drive?  Not named after a figure or event, certainly, and not really a military organization or unit.  Really just indicated it was (and is no longer) the road to the cemetery.  Is naming the road “Confederate” by itself naming it for a military organization or unit?

The statute then preserves the right of the pubic body to maintain, preserve, or restore the items, and to move them to a “more suitable location.”

(2) No person may prevent the public body responsible for maintaining any of the items, structures or areas described above from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation, care, repair or restoration of those items, structures or areas. The governing body may move the memorial to a more suitable location if it is determined that the location is more appropriate to displaying the monument.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the first four words:  “No person may prevent….”  This clearly bars anyone from interfering with some actions a public body may take.  Does it imply a right of action relating to other actions apparently covered by the first section? (I don’t think so but am open to arguments to the contrary).  But the balance of the statute does make clear that a public body can make a finding and move the “memorial” to “a more suitable location” if it is “more appropriate…”  That would certainly allow the University to move the Confederate statute if it made an appropriate finding.  But I don’t think they have any intention of doing that.

Where does that leave the claims?  The statute seems to clearly prohibit the renaming of a street that is a memorial to a military unit, but may not cover something as generic as “Confederate” because that is not a “military organization or unit.”  The statute would not allow altering the monument itself (but does not seem to prohibit adding explanatory plaques).  Section (2) may suggest by implication a private right of action to section (1), by prohibiting anyone contesting some actions that might seem barred under section (1) but not otherwise, but I think not.  The suggestion is far from explicit.

For those who want to read the statute straight through, the full text is blow the fold.

Continue reading Notes on the Confederate Memorial Lawsuit: What the statute says

Notes on the Confederate Memorial lawsuit: Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

I’ve pulled another standing case, which speaks in important ways to both the standing issue and, as to one claim, the merits issue.  It’s a pretty funny case for the SCV to have to explain away.

The overriding question is whether the SCV has any particularized injury on which to base their claim.  When [...]

Notes on the Confederate memorial lawsuit: The Sons do not appear to have standing to sue

Here, the Sons of Confederate Veterans are filing suit asserting the rights of its members.  They allege a couple of injuries.  One is that some members are descended from or relatives of people buried in the cemetery and have a right of access to it.  There is absolutely no evidence that the University has [...]

McDaniel reply brief in the election contest has been filed

There are not many surprises.  Most of the brief is an argument that Kellum, the case holding there is a 20 day deadline, is not the law.  The brief argues that it is not the law because the statute it construed has been repealed, because the reenactment of the statute materially changed it, and because, contrary [...]

Notes on the Confederate Memorial Lawsuit: The plaintiff’s “petition” makes claims they can’t prove and one they can prove

The last post contained the University statements about what they intended to do relating to things like the Confederate statue.  They looked to a model that  “[w]ithout attempts to erase history, even some difficult history, and without removing existing statues and building names… initiate[d] an effort to provide contemporary context for some of our [...]

Notes on the Confederate Memorial lawsuit: What, exactly, does the University say it is going to do?

The lawsuit was in response to the university’s “Action Plan on Consultant Reports and Update on the Work of the Sensitivity and Respect Committee”. While the Sons of Confederate Veterans allege that they were unable to see this plan (implying it was some sort of secret), it is readily available online. Here is the University [...]

Notes on the Confederate memorial lawsuit: They think this gets them a TRO?

The complaint begins by asking for a Temporary Restraining Order, which is as thin a request for that relief as I’ve ever seen.  That relief would, of course, require the plaintiff (well, petitioner, according to the complaint. Among other things, the lawyer who drafted this is unaware of Miss.R.Civ.Pro. 7(a).  Since I am, I’m [...]

Marshall Ramsey: McDaniel and McJournalist Charles Johnson vs. Jim Hood

Mississippi Supreme Court servers jammed up? More minutiae about the McDaniel election contest

Last night, I spent over an hour trying to download the Cochran response, and got nothing.  I could download the attachments, quickly, but not the brief.  I complained on Twitter, and almost immediately a friend, who could get it on his phone, sent it to me by email.

Apparently, the McDaniel campaign had the [...]

Sons of Confederates sue the University of Mississippi

An entity calling itself the “Mississippi Division Sons of Confederate Veterans” has filed suit against the University of Mississippi, alleging a right to enjoin the University from changing things related to the Civil War on campus.  It is hard to say who the plaintiff might be.  There is an incorporated organization called the “Mississippi [...]