259 F. Supp. 3d 494
E.D. La.2017Background
- Plaintiffs challenged the City of New Orleans’ December 2015 ordinance removing three Confederate-era monuments (Lee, Beauregard, Davis) and a Liberty Place monument; earlier litigation addressed the Liberty Place monument and injunctive relief was denied and affirmed on appeal.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under the Department of Transportation Act (Section 4(f)) and the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), a claim under the Veterans Memorial Preservation and Recognition Act (VMPRA), equal protection and due process claims, a Louisiana negotiorum gestio property theory, and state-law claims under Article XII, § 4 and City Code §146-611.
- Defendants included the City, the Federal Transit Administration and DOT (the Federal Defendants), and the RTA; motions before the Court sought dismissal and summary judgment and Plaintiffs sought a continuance for discovery under Rule 56(d).
- The court found (1) no protected property interest in the monuments (they are public things owned by the City), (2) no legal nexus between federally funded streetcar projects and the City’s locally funded removal, and (3) Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional claims lacked merit or were nonjusticiable.
- The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to continue for discovery and granted the City’s, RTA’s, and Federal Defendants’ dispositive motions, dismissing all remaining claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of DOT Act §4(f) / NHPA §106 to monument removal | Streetcar projects form a single, integrated federally-involved network; segmentation impermissible; cumulative effects require review | Projects were distinct; the relevant federally-funded projects received §4(f)/§106 review and found de minimis impacts; monument removal is locally funded and not a federal undertaking | Dismissed: No nexus to a federal project; §4(f)/§106 do not apply; discovery would be futile |
| Statute of limitations re: Loyola/UPT challenge | The Loyola/UPT was part of an ongoing multi-phase project so not time-barred | FTA’s relevant finding dates to 2011; claim is untimely | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction/statute of limitations |
| VMPRA claim and private right of action | Monuments commemorate persons who may have military service; removal may violate VMPRA | VMPRA is a criminal statute; private parties cannot enforce it; monuments not on federal property nor is removal "willful destruction" by use of interstate commerce | Dismissed with prejudice: no private cause of action and facts do not support criminal statute enforcement |
| Due process / property interest (negotiorum gestio) | Plaintiffs or their predecessors have a property interest via negotiorum gestio or other ownership claims | Monuments and underlying land are public things owned by the City; negotiorum gestio does not confer ownership | Dismissed: Plaintiffs lack protected property interest; due process claims fail |
| Equal protection (class-of-one / disparate treatment) | City treated groups differently (those seeking removal of Confederate monuments vs. Andrew Jackson supporters) | Ordinance applies generally; any differences satisfy rational-basis review; City had legitimate reasons | Dismissed: Plaintiffs failed to allege treatment of similarly situated persons and rational basis exists |
| Compliance with City procedures (§146-611) and donation policy | City failed to solicit appropriate HDLC input, used inaccurate reports, hid donor sources | City followed ordinance (solicited comments), donation is documented by Foundation for Louisiana; policy allows waiver; no prejudice to plaintiffs | Dismissed: procedural complaints insufficient and donation issue moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Monumental Task Comm., Inc. v. Chao, [citation="678 F. App'x 250"] (5th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s rejection of plaintiffs’ prima facie DOT Act and NHPA claims)
- Foxx v. City of New Orleans, 240 F. Supp. 3d 487 (E.D. La. 2017) (district court decision addressing many of the same claims and rejecting plaintiffs’ theories)
- Save Barton Creek Ass'n v. Federal Highway Admin., 950 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1992) (purpose of §4(f) is to protect historic/park resources from federally-funded projects)
- Sheridan-Kalorama Historical Ass'n v. Christopher, 49 F.3d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Section 106 applies only where the undertaking is federally funded or licensed)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (standard for procedural due process—opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)
- Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1970) (rational-basis review and limits on judicial second-guessing of legislative policy)
- Doe v. Taylor Indep. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 1994) (§1983 due process requires a recognized liberty or property interest)