N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 100
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 (2026)

Protection of monuments, memorials, and works of art

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 100 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Approval Required. - Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) of this section, a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval of the North Carolina Historical Commission.

(b) Limitations on Removal. - An object of remembrance located on public property may not be permanently removed and may only be relocated, whether temporarily or permanently, under the circumstances listed in this subsection and subject to the limitations in this subsection. An object of remembrance that is temporarily relocated shall be returned to its original location within 90 days of completion of the project that required its temporary removal. An object of remembrance that is permanently relocated shall be relocated to a site of similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability, and access that are within the boundaries of the jurisdiction from which it was relocated. An object of remembrance may not be relocated to a museum, cemetery, or mausoleum unless it was originally placed at such a location. As used in this section, the term "object of remembrance" means a monument, memorial, plaque, statue, marker, or display of a permanent character that commemorates an event, a person, or military service that is part of North Carolina's history. The circumstances under which an object of remembrance may be relocated are either of the following:

(1) When appropriate measures are required by the State or a political subdivision of the State to preserve the object.

(2) When necessary for construction, renovation, or reconfiguration of buildings, open spaces, parking, or transportation projects.

(c) Exceptions. - This section does not apply to the following:

(1) Highway markers set up by the Board of Transportation in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources as provided by Chapter 197 of the Public Laws of 1935.

(2) An object of remembrance owned by a private party that is located on public property and that is the subject of a legal agreement between the private party and the State or a political subdivision of the State governing the removal or relocation of the object.

(3) An object of remembrance for which a building inspector or similar official has determined poses a threat to public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition.

(4) An object of remembrance commemorating law enforcement officers of the Wildlife Resources Commission killed in the line of duty. (2015-170, s. 3(c); 2015-241, s. 14.30(c); 2023-69, s. 2.4.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 2022). · cites it 81× “¶ 20 Judge Tyson further contended that the monument was also protected by N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, that “a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval…”
United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 2022). · cites it 81× “¶ 20 Judge Tyson further contended that the monument was also protected by N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, that “a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval…”
Pugh v. Howard (N.C. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 37× “Plaintiffs further alleged that the Monument was an “object of remembrance” that could “only be relocated, whether temporarily or permanently,” in accordance with the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 , and that the County Commissioners’ vote to remove the Monument was a…”
McRoy v. Pitt Cnty., N.C. (N.C. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 32× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 The General Assembly enacted N.”
City of Roanoke Rapids v. Halifax Cnty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 21× “allegations are patently sufficient to invoke the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1 as a basis for adjudicating the rights and responsibilities of the respective parties to this dispute.”
United Daughters Of The Confederacy, NC Div. (N.C. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 20× “We note that with the exception of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 (which was presented and considered in regard to plaintiff’s standing argument), these authorities and arguments were not presented before this Court on appeal.”
Edwards v. Town of Louisburg (N.C. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 18× “Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a claim for declaratory relief under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 , and their claim under North Carolina’s Open Meetings Law (§§ 143-318.”
NAACP v. Gaston Cnty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 11× “1 Gaston County moved for summary judgment and sought a declaratory judgment that the Monument Protection Law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 (2023), prohibits the County from removing the monument.”
N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Alamance Cnty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “Opinion of the Court location in front of the courthouse and refusing to remove the Monument to another location.”
The Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-Sixth N.C. Troops (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “The Petition asserted plaintiff’s claim that defendant City lacked authority under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 to remove the Vance Monument.”
The Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-Sixth N.C. Troops (N.C. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “The Petition asserted plaintiff’s claim that defendant City lacked authority under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 to remove the Vance Monument.”
Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-sixth N.C. Troops, Inc. v. City of Asheville (N.C. 2024). · cites it 4× “Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant City breached the 2015 agreement, and plaintiff was entitled to entry of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment that N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, which governs the removal of State-owned monuments,…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1(a) — 3 cases
United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 2022). “¶ 20 Judge Tyson further contended that the monument was also protected by N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, that “a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval…”
United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 2022). “¶ 20 Judge Tyson further contended that the monument was also protected by N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, that “a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval…”
Pugh v. Howard (N.C. Ct. App. 2023). “Plaintiffs further alleged that the Monument was an “object of remembrance” that could “only be relocated, whether temporarily or permanently,” in accordance with the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 , and that the County Commissioners’ vote to remove the Monument was a…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1(b) — 3 cases
United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 2022). “¶ 20 Judge Tyson further contended that the monument was also protected by N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, that “a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval…”
United Daughters of the Confederacy, N.C. Div. v. City of Winston-Salem (N.C. 2022). “¶ 20 Judge Tyson further contended that the monument was also protected by N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, which provides, subject to certain exceptions, that “a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval…”
NAACP v. Gaston Cnty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2026). “1 Gaston County moved for summary judgment and sought a declaratory judgment that the Monument Protection Law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 (2023), prohibits the County from removing the monument.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1(c)(1) — 1 case
N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Alamance Cnty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2024). “Opinion of the Court location in front of the courthouse and refusing to remove the Monument to another location.”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1(c)(3) — 2 cases
N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Alamance Cnty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2024). “Opinion of the Court location in front of the courthouse and refusing to remove the Monument to another location.”
NAACP v. Gaston Cnty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2026). “1 Gaston County moved for summary judgment and sought a declaratory judgment that the Monument Protection Law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1 (2023), prohibits the County from removing the monument.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.