Denne A. Sweeney and Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Wallace Jefferson, in His Administrative Capacity Rick Perry, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas And Edward Johnson, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Building and Procurement Commission

Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-04-00223-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 28, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellants Denne A. Sweeney and the Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. filed an appeal against appellees—including Wallace Jefferson, Governor Rick Perry, and Edward Johnson—following the district court's dismissal of their case due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the removal of two plaques from the Texas Supreme Court Building that commemorated Confederate veterans. Despite appellees’ claims that Sweeney had been removed as a plaintiff, the court acknowledged him as an appellant, as he was included in the relevant court documents without a formal removal entry on the docket.

The district court had granted the appellees' plea to the jurisdiction but was found to have had the authority to consider the Confederate Veterans' claims. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The original plaques, installed in 1957 to honor Confederate veterans, were removed in 2000 without the approval of the Texas Historical Commission or any public notice, replaced with new plaques emphasizing equal justice and the building’s funding source related to the Confederate Pension Fund.

The Confederate Veterans initiated a lawsuit in Travis County district court contesting the removal of original plaques and the installation of new ones at the Texas Supreme Court building. Their third amended petition claimed unlawful actions by the appellees and cited multiple legal bases for jurisdiction, including various chapters of the Texas Constitution, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Natural Resources Code, Government Code, and Administrative Code. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting: 

1. A declaration that the removal of original plaques violated the Texas Constitution.
2. A declaration that the new plaques did not meet constitutional requirements for memorializing Confederate Texans.
3. A declaration that the removal of original plaques contravened the Texas Antiquities Code and other statutes due to lack of lawful authority.
4. An order for the protection and re-installation of the original plaques.
5. Alternative requests for the original plaques to be placed in front of the new plaques if the court could not order the removal of the new plaques.
6. A directive for the plaintiffs to seek the removal of the new plaques through the Texas Historical Commission if the court found the removal unlawful.
7. Recovery of attorney’s fees and costs as permitted by law.
8. Any additional relief deemed just.

The appellees responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the district court lacked authority to grant the Confederate Veterans' requests, particularly regarding the removal and re-installation of plaques. The court partially granted the plea, determining it lacked jurisdiction over claims for removal or re-installation but retained jurisdiction over other claims. After the court denied a motion to reconsider, the Confederate Veterans filed a fourth amended petition citing additional jurisdictional grounds.

The Confederate Veterans seek declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting that the Defendants have violated the Texas Constitution and various state statutes. They request a court order for a mandatory injunction to remove a second New Plaque and to reinstall the Original Plaques in their original location. They cite the Texas Constitution, the Government Code, and the Natural Resources Code as the basis for this request, emphasizing the court's inherent injunctive powers and specific statutory provisions that mandate the relocation of the Original Markers. Alongside their fourth amended petition, the plaintiffs filed a second motion to reconsider and a motion for summary judgment. In response, the Defendants filed a second plea to the jurisdiction, claiming the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the Confederate Veterans’ claims. The district court granted this plea, dismissed the case, and denied the motions as moot without specifying the grounds for its decision. The Confederate Veterans subsequently appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing the case, denying the motion to reconsider, and denying the motion for summary judgment. The Defendants contended that the trial court correctly granted the plea to the jurisdiction and that the court cannot consider the Confederate Veterans’ subsequent issues due to lack of jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals. The case's standard of review focuses on the trial court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which is essential for a court's authority to decide a case. A plea to the jurisdiction challenges this authority, requiring the challenging party to demonstrate that there is a jurisdictional defect within the plaintiffs' pleadings, which is a question of law.

The court conducts a de novo review of a trial court's dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, focusing solely on the jurisdictional facts alleged and relevant evidence, without addressing the case's merits. The plaintiff must sufficiently allege facts that demonstrate the court's jurisdiction. If the plaintiff's petition does not affirmatively show a lack of jurisdiction, it is construed liberally in favor of jurisdiction. The court accepts good faith jurisdictional allegations as true unless proven otherwise by the defendant. In this case, the Confederate Veterans assert eight causes of action against appellees for unlawfully removing original plaques and installing new ones, claiming violations of the Texas Antiquities Code, various sections of the Texas Government Code, and the Texas Constitution. They seek a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunctive relief to restore the original state. Although the appellees admit to violating government code provisions by acting without Texas Historical Commission approval, they contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address this violation. The court notes that Texas district courts are courts of general jurisdiction and have the authority to determine rights and grant relief unless proven otherwise. The appellees do not dispute the jurisdictional allegations related to the applicable Texas codes.

Appellees did not assert or demonstrate that the jurisdictional allegations made were fraudulent, allowing for the presumption of the district court's jurisdiction over the Confederate Veterans’ claims under various chapters of the Texas Government Code. The Confederate Veterans claim jurisdiction specifically under Chapter 2166, arguing that the removal of original plaques and the installation of new ones violated section 2166.501(d), which mandates approval from the Texas Historical Commission for such actions. Although appellees acknowledged the lack of approval, they argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to address this violation because sections 2166.501 and 2166.5011 limit the court's authority to grant the requested relief, which includes the removal of new plaques and re-installation of the originals. 

The district court must assess how these sections affect its jurisdiction, a matter subject to de novo review. In interpreting these statutes, the court's aim is to discern and implement legislative intent, starting with the plain language of the statutes and considering them in their entirety. Section 2166.501, enacted in 1995, regulates the erection of monuments for Texas heroes and stipulates that approval from the Texas Historical Commission is required prior to the erection of any new memorials. Section 2166.5011, enacted four years later, further specifies that monuments can only be removed or altered by certain authorities, including the legislature or the Texas Historical Commission, thereby reinforcing the restrictions on district court jurisdiction regarding such matters.

Sections 2166.501 and 2166.5011 do not limit the district court's jurisdiction regarding whether the appellees unlawfully removed and replaced plaques or what remedy might be available for these actions. These statutes do not mention 'court' or 'jurisdiction' and do not diminish the district court's inherent jurisdiction. The Texas Supreme Court has affirmed that a court with jurisdiction over a cause can exercise necessary powers to ensure justice and enforce its judgments. The Confederate Veterans claim jurisdiction under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA), asserting that the appellees acted without the required authority. The appellees argue that the UDJA does not confer jurisdiction without an underlying cause of action. However, previous rulings have allowed private parties to seek declaratory relief against state officials for actions taken without legal authority. The court accepted the Confederate Veterans’ claims as true, confirming the district court's jurisdiction to hear their case for declaratory relief.

The court found it unnecessary to address the jurisdiction under the Texas Constitution, as the claims were adequately covered under other codes. Regarding motions for reconsideration and summary judgment, the court chose not to address these issues in light of its finding on jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court reversed the dismissal order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case for further proceedings.