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. App.Dec 29, 2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Bray, Littlefield, Sons of Confederate Veterans) challenge UT‑Austin President Gregory Fenves’s removal/relocation of several Littlefield veterans’ monuments (including Jefferson Davis and Woodrow Wilson) from the South Mall.
- Trial court sustained the defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction; plaintiffs appeal and seek reversal and remand, arguing the trial court nonetheless exercised jurisdiction by denying a temporary injunction and by other post‑order acts.
- Plaintiffs assert three bases for jurisdiction: (1) district courts’ presumption of general jurisdiction (citing Sweeney v. Jefferson); (2) individual and associational standing of SCV members Bray and Littlefield; and (3) taxpayer standing because the University allegedly violated federal and state laws and expended public funds.
- Substance of alleged legal violations: breach of the Littlefield bequest’s site/design restrictions; violation of the federal Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act (18 U.S.C. § 1369); violation of Texas Monument Protection Act (Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2166.501, 2166.5011).
- Plaintiffs also argue federal Establishment/monument jurisprudence (Van Orden, Lemon, and related cases) supports treating the statues as veterans’ memorials and that removal was unlawful; remedies sought include return of the statues, declaratory relief, and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / presumption of district‑court subject‑matter jurisdiction | Sweeney controls: district courts have a presumption of jurisdiction; trial court exercised incidental jurisdiction (denied TRO, denied motion to void) so jurisdiction exists | Sections of Monument Protection Act are inapplicable; defendant contends no jurisdiction | Trial court sustained plea to jurisdiction; plaintiffs ask this Court to reverse and remand (court below exercised incidental jurisdiction per plaintiffs) |
| Individual standing (Bray & Littlefield) | Descendants and SCV members suffered concrete, particularized injury tied to preservation of Confederate veterans’ memory; injuries traceable to Fenves’s removal and redressable by return | Defendant contends plaintiffs’ alleged harms are diffuse and no more than general public injury | Trial court found lack of jurisdiction; plaintiffs contend the court erred and that Abbott test for individual standing is satisfied |
| Taxpayer standing / statutory and federal violations | Removal violated Littlefield bequest, Texas Monument Protection Act, and federal 18 U.S.C. § 1369 (VMPR Act); public funds were spent, creating taxpayer‑standing exception | Defendant argues President had authority to relocate statues and statutes are inapplicable or insufficient to confer jurisdiction | Trial court sustained plea to jurisdiction; plaintiffs assert illegal expenditure of public funds creates taxpayer standing and seek reversal |
| Associational standing (Sons of Confederate Veterans) | SCV’s organizational purpose is to preserve these monuments; SCV represents members’ interests and meets associational‑standing criteria | Defendant urges different standing test (Texas Ass’n of Business) and says associational standing not met | Trial court sustained plea to jurisdiction; plaintiffs assert SCV has associational standing and that trial court erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweeney v. Jefferson, 212 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) (district court jurisdiction presumption and application to monument‑removal dispute)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (district courts are courts of general jurisdiction)
- City of Dallas v. Wright, 36 S.W.2d 973 (Tex. 1931) (court may exercise powers incidental to general jurisdiction to preserve subject matter)
- Abbott v. G.G.E., Inc., 463 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015) (framework for individual standing analysis in Texas)
- Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (passive monument Establishment Clause analysis emphasizing context and history)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (Establishment Clause test analyzing purpose, effect, and entanglement)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009) (government‑owned display/monument speech and forum principles)
- Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010) (monument disputes and consideration of historical context)
- Utah Highway Patrol Ass’n v. American Atheists, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 12 (2011) (memorial crosses and Establishment Clause questions)