856 S.E.2d 203
Va.2021Background
- In 1919–1924 the City of Charlottesville accepted donated land and erected Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues in two city parks (the Statues).
- In 2017 Charlottesville City Council passed resolutions to remove/rename/ redesign the parks and later covered the Statues with black tarps after the August 2017 rally; Plaintiffs sought to block those actions.
- Plaintiffs sued under Va. Code §§ 15.2-1812 and 15.2-1812.1 (and related § 18.2-137), alleging the City violated statutory protections for war memorials and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief plus attorneys’ fees; the circuit court held the statutes applied to the Statues, enjoined disturbance, ordered removal of the tarps, and awarded attorneys’ fees.
- The City appealed, arguing the 1997 statute did not apply to monuments erected decades earlier, that Plaintiffs lacked a basis for fees and some forms of standing, and that the circuit court erred in granting declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Virginia Supreme Court reversed: it held § 15.2-1812 applies prospectively only to monuments erected under that statute and therefore does not regulate or prohibit the City’s handling of the 1920s Statues; all relief grounded on that statute (including fees and injunctions) was vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Award of attorneys' fees under §15.2-1812.1 | Plaintiffs prevailed and §15.2-1812.1 authorizes fees/costs | No compensable damages shown; §15.2-1812 does not itself authorize fees; no other basis for fees | Reversed: fees vacated because §15.2-1812 does not apply to these Statues, so award under §15.2-1812.1 was unsupported |
| Availability of declaratory judgment and permanent injunction under §§15.2-1812/1812.1 | Statutes authorize civil enforcement to prevent disturbance of protected memorials | Statutes do not reach monuments erected before 1997 and thus cannot support relief | Reversed: declaratory and injunctive relief improperly granted because statutes do not govern pre-1997 city monuments |
| Taxpayer standing to adjudicate violations/obtain injunctions | Taxpayers (and others) have standing to challenge ultra vires or statutory violations affecting public monuments | Plaintiffs lack taxpayer standing for speculative future expenditures and cannot invoke standing for these claims | Deemed moot as to outcome; court rejected circuit court's statutory-based relief—standing could not salvage awards grounded on §15.2-1812 |
| Retroactivity: Does §15.2-1812 apply to monuments erected before 1997? | §15.2-1812 protects memorials regardless of when erected; applying prohibitions prospectively only would be arbitrary | Statute’s plain language is prospective (applies to monuments erected pursuant to the statute); no clear legislative intent for retroactive effect | Held: statute is prospective; does not apply to Statues erected in 1920s; circuit court erred in reading it as retroactive |
Key Cases Cited
- Conyers v. Martial Arts World of Richmond, Inc., 273 Va. 96 (2007) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hoffman Fam., L.L.C. v. City of Alexandria, 272 Va. 274 (2006) (use of plain statutory language to determine legislative intent)
- Boynton v. Kilgore, 271 Va. 220 (2006) (avoid strained constructions; prefer plain meaning)
- Vollin v. Arlington Cnty. Electoral Bd., 216 Va. 674 (1976) (plain, obvious, rational meaning preferred)
- Davis v. County of Fairfax, 282 Va. 23 (2011) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Town of Culpeper v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 215 Va. 189 (1974) (presumption against retroactivity)
- Bailey v. Spangler, 289 Va. 353 (2015) (statutes construed to operate prospectively absent clear legislative intent)
- Covel v. Town of Vienna, 280 Va. 151 (2010) (definition of absurd result in statutory construction)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 169 Va. 77 (1937) (failure to express retroactive intent indicates none)