CopyCited 42 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 25, 2022
...Applying that framework to this case, T. Davis Humphries, as
a private citizen, has standing to assert a claim for injunctive relief
against her local county government for its planned removal of a
Confederate monument in alleged violation of OCGA §
50-3-1....
...claim for injunctive relief, but it was right to affirm the dismissal of
the complaints filed by the various Sons of Confederate Veterans
groups. We do not reach the question of whether Humphries has
standing for her claim for damages under OCGA §
50-3-1, because
the cause of action that statute purports to create has not yet arisen;
by the statute’s terms, the cause of action arises only upon the
occurrence of conduct prohibited by the statute, and that conduct
has not yet occurred....
...Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of
Humphries’s statutory claim for damages and all claims by the Sons
of Confederate Veterans groups, and reverse the dismissal of
Humphries’s claim for injunctive relief.
1. Background.
(a) The statute at issue.
OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) makes it unlawful for any agency, including
4
all state and local government entities,1 or any officer of an agency
(whether elected or appointed), to remove certain historic
monuments, including monuments that honor the military service
of soldiers of the Confederate States of America. See OCGA §
50-3-1
(b) (2)....
...state or its agencies” or “on real property owned by an agency or the
State of Georgia” can be relocated, removed, concealed, obscured, or
altered in any fashion, except for the preservation, protection, and
interpretation of such monuments. OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (3). A person
or entity that damages or removes a monument without replacing it
is liable for treble damages for the cost of repairing or replacing the
monument, attorney’s fees, and even exemplary damages. OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (4)....
...nal
institution, commission, or instrumentality or subdivision thereof, and
specifically including a local board of education, the Board of Regents of the
University System of Georgia, and any institution of the University System of
Georgia.” OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (1) (A).
5
parties or groups, not only public entities owning a monument:
A public entity owning a monument or 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. Such action
shall be brought in the superior court of the county in
which the monument was located.
OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (5).
(b) Procedural history.
As alleged in the relevant complaint, the Henry County Board
of Commissioners in July 2020 voted to remove a Confederate
monument from the courthouse square in McDonough....
...As a result
of this vote, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Colonel Charles T.
Zachry Camp #108, and Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate
Veterans, filed suit against the Board seeking injunctive relief and
damages, asserting that the Henry County Board’s vote signaled an
intention to violate OCGA §
50-3-1 (b).
Less than a week later, Humphries filed a similar complaint
for damages and injunctive relief against the Newton County Board
of Commissioners, in their official capacity, alleging that the
6
County’s intention to hold an expedited vote to remove a
Confederate monument from downtown Covington and place it in
storage would violate OCGA §
50-3-1 (b)....
...complaint similar to Humphries’s. Although each group phrased
their allegations a bit differently from the other, the plaintiffs in
Newton County all generally alleged that the County’s votes
directing action to remove the monuments did or would violate
OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (2)-(4).
Humphries brought her suit as a private citizen of Newton
County....
...All of the plaintiffs in all three
7
suits alleged that the unlawful removal of the monument would
cause them injury to their “rights and dignity.” The plaintiffs alleged
that they had standing under OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (5).
A Newton County trial court consolidated, then dismissed, the
two complaints filed against the Newton County Board of
Commissioners. The Newton County trial court concluded that the
plaintiffs in the Newton County suits lacked standing because they
suffered no damages, as the monument in Covington had not been
removed; that a 2019 amendment to OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) removed a
party’s ability to seek an injunction under the statute;2 and that the
claims were nevertheless barred by sovereign immunity. The trial
court also issued a stay pending appeal, preventing Newton County
from taking any action to remove the monument.
In Henry County, the trial court denied an emergency
2 Prior to the 2019 amendment, OCGA §
50-3-1 specifically permitted
injunctive relief to prevent prohibited actions to remove publicly owned or
displayed monuments. See OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (3) (2004)....
...Relying principally on federal case law decided under Article
III of the U.S. Constitution, and recent Georgia case law supporting
reliance on such federal precedent, the Court of Appeals held that
the Plaintiffs lacked standing. The court reasoned that, although
9
OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (5) provided a cause of action, the “constitutional
doctrine of standing still requires that a cause of action involve a
concrete and particularized injury.” Id....
...whether sovereign immunity barred the Plaintiffs’ claims. See id. at
806 (3).
We granted the Plaintiffs’ petitions for certiorari to consider
whether the Georgia Constitution requires some cognizable injury
to have standing to sue when OCGA §
50-3-1 does not expressly
require it.
2....
...(citation and punctuation
omitted). The statute at issue here imposed a new duty on
government agencies, and its plain text provides a cause of action to
11
“any person, group, or legal entity” to enforce that duty. See OCGA
§
50-3-1 (b) (5)....
... changed at the will, or even at the whim, of the legislature, unless
prevented by constitutional limitations” (citation and punctuation
omitted)). Therefore, whether “any person, group, or legal entity”
can pursue a cause of action under OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (5) (emphasis
added), or whether the world of plaintiffs is cabined in some way,
depends on whether our standing requirements arise from the
Georgia Constitution, or from a lesser source.
The Plaintiffs argue that nothing in the Georgia Constitution
requires a showing of an individualized injury and that they have
standing under OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (5).3 The Henry County Board of
Commissioners argues that standing requires the existence of an
3 The Plaintiffs argue that certain statutes recognize that each plaintiff
⸺ a citizen, a corporation, and unincorporated organizations ⸺ has the ability
to bring suits in their own name....
...lleged an individualized
injury. Compare Mason v. Home Depot, U.S.A.,
283 Ga. 271, 273 (1)
(658 SE2d 603) (2008). But they still need to have alleged a
55
cognizable injury.
The Plaintiffs argue that OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (5), by itself,
provides them standing to sue because it allows “any person, group,
or legal entity” the right to bring a cause of action....
...le injury
with whether a party is authorized by the relevant statute to bring
a cause of action (or “statutory standing”),20 our above discussion
makes clear that a statute cannot confer standing in the absence of
a cognizable injury.21 OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (5)’s language allowing “any
person, group, or legal entity” the right to bring a cause of action
does not state whether that “person, group, or legal entity” must
suffer some cognizable injury....
...meaning, one of which is constitutional and the other not, we
interpret the statute as being consistent with the Constitution.”
(citation and punctuation omitted)). That being said, the Plaintiffs
cannot rely solely on the right to bring a cause of action under OCGA
§
50-3-1 (b) (5) as establishing their cognizable injury.
As for their cognizable injury, the Plaintiffs allege that their
“rights and dignity” will be injured as a result of the monument
removals. The Plaintiffs cite no authority supporting the proposition
that this sort of injury to dignity, without more, is a cognizable
injury. The Plaintiffs do not specify what rights were allegedly
violated. To the extent they rely on OCGA §
50-3-1, that statute
created a public duty on the part of government entities to protect
and preserve public monuments and provided a cause of action for a
59
violation of that duty....
...permit one
individual to recover damages, but that is not a question we need
definitely resolve today. To decide that question would be to decide
whether the General Assembly has constitutional authority to
permit damages in a statute like OCGA §
50-3-1 to be sought by a
party with only public-rights standing....
...decision in the appeal can be made upon other grounds). And here it
is not necessary.
We need not resolve whether the General Assembly lacked
such constitutional authority, and thus determine the
constitutionality of OCGA §
50-3-1, because the cause of action that
the statute purports to create has not yet arisen under Humphries’s
allegations....
...The statute prohibits the relocation, removal,
concealment, or alteration of a monument, and makes liable any
61
conduct that damages, destroys, loses a monument or removes one
without replacement. See OCGA §
50-3-1 (b) (3), (4)....
...every such person and entity to sue and that the multitude of resulting lawsuits
would cause significant harm to the County’s finances. Because the underlying
interest concerns a public right, as opposed to a private one, the outcome of a
suit against a local government under OCGA §
50-3-1 may well bind nonparties
who share that interest....
...erans groups did not allege
that they are citizens, residents, or taxpayers of any county, much
less the counties that they sued. They have set forth no allegations
showing that they are community stakeholders, such that the duty
created by OCGA §
50-3-1 is one that is owed to them. Therefore,
any violation of OCGA §
50-3-1 does not result in a cognizable injury
to the Sons of Confederate Veterans groups; and, as a result, they
do not have independent, direct standing as organizations....
...Veterans groups did not allege that they had associational standing
or otherwise indicate that they include members that would have
citizen/resident/taxpayer standing on their own.
To the extent the Sons of Confederate Veterans groups argue
that OCGA §
50-3-1’s authorization of damages provides them with
an injury, their view of standing is backwards....
