Gary David Bray and Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., and David Steven Littlefield v. Gregory L. Fenves, in His Capacity as the President of the University of Texas at Austin
06-15-00075-CV
| Tex. Crim. App. | Nov 9, 2015Background
- In 1919 Major George W. Littlefield bequeathed funds to the University of Texas (UT) to create a South Mall memorial (including monuments to Jefferson Davis and Woodrow Wilson) and other campus improvements; the University accepted and installed the monuments, dedicated in 1933.
- In August 2015 UT President Gregory Fenves ordered removal of the Davis and Wilson monuments; plaintiffs (Gary Bray, Texas Division Sons of Confederate Veterans, and Steven Littlefield) sued for temporary relief and declaratory judgment and sought to enjoin removal.
- The trial court denied the temporary injunction application and granted UT’s plea to the jurisdiction with prejudice, rendering the declaratory claim dismissed; plaintiffs appealed.
- Plaintiffs contend they have individual, taxpayer, and associational standing and that Fenves’s removal breached the Littlefield bequest (election of benefits/quasi‑estoppel) and violated statutory and regental rules protecting monuments and governing gifts.
- Remedies sought include reversal of jurisdictional dismissal, return of the monuments to the South Mall, disgorgement/creation of a trust to administer Littlefield funds, and enforcement of UT Board of Regents rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | Bray/Littlefield suffered concrete injury from threatened/actual removal; SCV has associational standing; taxpayers can challenge illegal public‑fund expenditures; Texas Constitution guarantees open courts | UT argued lack of particularized injury and no real controversy; University governance decisions | (Brief) Plaintiffs urge reversal: they assert individual, taxpayer, associational, and constitutional‑remedy bases for standing and dispute of material facts precluded plea to jurisdiction |
| Nature and enforceability of Littlefield instrument | Littlefield’s testamentary gift (bequest) imposed obligations when UT accepted; acceptance = election of benefits (burdens) and estops UT from relocating monuments; plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement for breach | UT (and trial court) treated the conveyance under modern charitable‑trust statutes or as within institutional discretion | (Brief) Plaintiffs argue historical will law controls (1920 law), yielding a bequest/election/quasi‑estoppel claim that precludes unilateral removal |
| Statutory protection for monuments | Davis and Wilson statues qualify as protected monuments under Texas Government Code §§2166.501/2166.5011; removal required legislative or enumerated agency action, not unilateral university action | UT may assert exemptions (e.g., institutional projects) or internal governance authority to relocate campus displays | (Brief) Plaintiffs assert the statutory removal procedures were not followed and UT is not exempt because monuments were Littlefield‑funded, not UT constructed |
| Compliance with Board of Regents rules on gifts/bequests | UT officials acted ultra vires by ignoring Regents’ rules delegating gift administration (Rules 138 §2; 60101 §2/ODGPS procedures) | UT may claim internal discretion or that procedural safeguards were not applicable | (Brief) Plaintiffs contend violations of Regents’ rules support relief and redressability of their claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. G.G.E., 463 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015) (articulates Texas individual‑standing test applied here)
- Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (governs associational standing and standing/jurisdiction principles in Texas)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (Texas open‑courts/standing discussion; plaintiff’s right to relief vs. jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (federal benchmark for injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability used in Abbott test)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to jurisdiction standards; when jurisdictional fact questions require resolution at trial)
- Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1972) (standing principles regarding cases/controversies)
- Dakan v. Dakan, 83 S.W.2d 620 (Tex. 1935) (doctrine of election under a will: accepting benefits requires accepting burdens)