By Miles Layton

EDENTON — The North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s ruling against groups that challenged the Town of Edenton’s move of its Confederate monument, likely ending a legal fight that began in 2022.

A three-judge panel ruled unanimously Oct. 7 that the Sons of Confederate Veterans lacked legal standing to bring the case. The court also dismissed the appeal of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, whose claims a trial judge had earlier found moot.

To see the “receipts,” as Dan Bongino says, the Appeals Court’s ruling is posted at the end of the story.

Town officials removed the monument at midnight over Labor Day weekend in 2025, days after a Chowan County judge dismissed the case. The statue now rests at the former Chowan County Detention Center, away from its longtime spot in the median at the southern end of Broad Street – the area near where the plantation manor Martinique will be reconstructed next year, triggering a whole new set of folks, same as cotton harvest time and seeing the General Lee racing away from Hazzard County Sheriff Coltrane on television.

Michael Dean, 1st Lt. for Edenton Bell Battery Chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said he was not happy with the ruling but that the group intends to move forward.

“Locally, we are considering another avenue but can’t say what that may be. If it pans out, we will drop it on the council the way we did with the suit,” he said.

Dean did not say what the “other avenue” might be, only that the group would keep the town council informed if it goes forward.

On that note, I don’t suspect this war is over, not after everything. The court never ruled on whether the move is legal; it only decided that these plaintiffs weren’t entitled to sue because they lacked standing.

And, for that one media outlet that tends to “borrow” our stuff, please attribute to the Albemarle Observer.

And to another media outlet based in a big city that doesn’t do its homework either, the Confederate Memorial has been moved — so the photo included with my story is a file photo that’s at least 18 months old, not present day.

Why the court sided with the town

Judge Fred Gore wrote the opinion, and Judges Donna Stroud and Jeff Carpenter joined him. It is an unpublished opinion, which means it is not controlling legal authority in future cases. Unpublished opinions have limited value as precedents.

This is all “lawyer-eeze” so bear with me.

Long-story-short — Court threw out the challenge to moving Edenton’s Confederate monument, ruling that the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy never had the legal right to sue in the first place. The groups sued as organizations rather than naming individual members, and the court said their complaint didn’t show any real injury, any misuse of public money, or a specific constitutional right that was violated. Because the court considered the case “materially indistinguishable” from an earlier one involving a monument in Pitt County, it said it was bound by that ruling. Since the groups couldn’t clear that first hurdle, the judges never got to the central question of whether the proposed new site gives the monument the “similar prominence” state law requires. That means the court didn’t decide whether the relocation itself is legal, only that these plaintiffs couldn’t bring the case.

Now for the lawyers and judges: The appeal came from the N.C. Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. and the N.C. Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy Inc. A third plaintiff in the original suit, the Colonel William F. Martin Camp 1521 of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, did not appeal.

Standing is the legal requirement that a person or group suing must have a stake in the outcome, such as a legally protected right that has been harmed. The Sons of Confederate Veterans argued it met that test on several grounds.

“SCV contends that it sufficiently alleged standing based on its members’ status as taxpayers, associational standing, the allegedly ultra vires nature of the proposed relocation, and the Equal Protection Clause of Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution,” Gore wrote.

A government action is considered “ultra vires” if the government agency lacked the power or authority to take the action.

The court was not persuaded by any of it.

“SCV has not alleged the infringement of a legal right, an injurious misuse of public funds or property, standing possessed by any of its members, or another cognizable interest affected by the proposed relocation,” Gore wrote. “Nor can SCV obtain standing merely by characterizing the Town’s proposed action as ultra vires or alleging a violation of a statute that confers no private enforcement right upon it. Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed SCV’s claims for lack of standing.”

A key problem was who filed the suit. Only the three organizations were plaintiffs, and no individual member was.

“The complaint named only the three organizational plaintiffs and did not name any individual member as a plaintiff,” Gore wrote. “Plaintiffs alleged that their organizations exist to honor and remember those who served in the armed forces of the Confederate States of America and to preserve the history of the Confederate soldier. They further alleged that their memberships include individuals who reside within Chowan County and the Town’s corporate limits, are subject to taxation by those entities, and are descendants of persons who lived in Chowan County during the Civil War.”

The group had argued its members could sue as taxpayers. The court said the complaint did not back that up.

“The complaint does not establish taxpayer standing because it alleges neither a demand and refusal nor facts demonstrating futility, and it identifies no specific misuse or unlawful diversion of public funds,” Gore concluded. “Because SCV’s members would not possess standing individually, SCV also lacks associational standing. The complaint alleges no ownership, contractual, or other cognizable legal interest belonging to SCV, and N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1 neither creates a private cause of action for SCV nor confers a personal legal right that SCV may enforce. Finally, the complaint’s conclusory constitutional allegations do not identify a constitutional right infringed by the Town.”

The constitutional claims fared no better. Gore wrote that a violation of state constitutional rights can give someone standing, but the plaintiff has to be specific.

“The infringement of a right arising under the North Carolina Constitution may constitute a legal injury sufficient to establish standing,” Gore explained. “But the plaintiff must identify the constitutional right allegedly infringed and allege facts showing how the defendant’s conduct deprived the plaintiff of that right. Conclusory assertions of unequal treatment, discrimination, or constitutional injury are insufficient.”

The complaint, he said, fell short.

“The complaint alleges generally that the Town’s actions violate Article I, Sections 2, 12, 14, 18, and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution,” Gore added. “It does not identify any individual SCV member whose constitutional rights were infringed, allege that the Town classified or treated SCV or a member differently from a similarly situated person, or identify any liberty, property, or other legally protected interest of which SCV was deprived.”

The panel said it was bound by an earlier published Court of Appeals decision, McRoy v. Pitt County, which involved a similar challenge to the relocation of a Confederate monument. The opinion described the Edenton arguments as “materially indistinguishable” from those rejected there. It also relied on a 2022 N.C. Supreme Court decision, United Daughters of the Confederacy v. City of Winston-Salem.

Because the Sons of Confederate Veterans lacked standing, the court never reached the question at the center of the group’s case. The state law at issue, N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1, protects historical monuments and limits when and where they can be moved. The group argued the courthouse site did not meet its requirement of similar prominence. The opinion states the court does not decide “whether the relocation contemplated by the MOU satisfies N.C.G.S. § 100-2.1(b)(2), including whether the proposed site provides similar prominence, honor, visibility, availability, and access.”

Daughters’ appeal dismissed

Flashback — A trial judge had ruled the Daughters’ claims moot because the group consented to an agreement between the town and Chowan County governing the move. Mootness means there is no longer a live dispute for a court to resolve.

On appeal, the Daughters said they were adopting the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ brief. That brief did not challenge the mootness ruling.

“UDC purported to adopt SCV’s brief but presents no argument challenging the independent ruling that its claims are moot,” Gore wrote. “We therefore dismiss UDC’s appeal. As to SCV, we affirm.”

The town had also argued the Daughters missed the deadline to file a brief. The court said it did not need to decide whether the delay alone justified dismissal.

According to the complaint, the Bell Battery began raising money for the monument in 1904, and the United Daughters of the Confederacy dedicated and donated it May 10, 1909. It was first placed on the grounds of the former Chowan County Courthouse.

In about 1961, the town and the Chowan County Board of Commissioners agreed to move it to the southern end of Broad Street near the Edenton waterfront, where it stayed for more than six decades.

The Edenton Town Council voted in February 2022 to move the monument elsewhere within the town limits. No new site had been chosen at the time. The three groups sued the town and Mayor Jimmy Stallings in Chowan County Superior Court on Dec. 2, 2022.

They alleged the move would violate state law, that the town was acting beyond its authority and that its actions broke several provisions of the state constitution. They asked for a declaratory judgment, an order quieting title to the monument, attorney’s fees, and temporary and preliminary injunctions.

The town answered in February 2023 and asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and had failed to state a claim. In March 2023, the council picked Hollowell Park on West Queen Street as the new site. A judge then issued a restraining order barring the move and required the plaintiffs to post a $500 bond.

The town later abandoned Hollowell Park. In November 2024, Edenton and Chowan County signed a memorandum of understanding to move the monument “to County-owned open space behind the current Chowan County Courthouse near the existing War Memorial,” Gore wrote.

The plaintiffs split

The plaintiffs did not agree on that site. At an Aug. 25, 2025, hearing, the lawyer for the Daughters and the Martin Camp told the court his clients supported the agreement. The opinion quotes him as saying “a lot ha[d] changed with regard to the MOU.”

Gore wrote that the lawyer “stated that the Town and County had satisfied the requirements of subsection 100-2.1(b)(2) because the proposed site remained within the Town, would provide similar prominence and greater access, and would place the monument near other veterans’ memorials.”

The Sons of Confederate Veterans “did not join that position,” Gore wrote. Its attorney called the courthouse site an improvement over Hollowell Park but argued it did not give the monument similar prominence. The group also raised concerns about the stability of the ground at the proposed site, according to the opinion.

Superior Court Judge Wayland J. Sermons Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice in an order dated Aug. 27, 2025, and an amended order the next day. He ruled that the Daughters’ and the Martin Camp’s claims were moot, and that the Sons of Confederate Veterans lacked standing. He also lifted the restraining order.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans filed notice of appeal Sept. 26, 2025, and the Daughters filed theirs two days later. The Court of Appeals heard arguments Sept. 15, 2026.

And here we are to the present…