A group that advocates for Southern heritage has vowed to appeal a federal appeals court panel’s decision that rejected arguments challenging the city of Lakeland’s relocation of a Confederate monument.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decided last month that Lakeland’s relocation of a “cenotaph” dedicated to Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War did not violate the plaintiffs’ First Amendment or due-process rights. The 26-feet-tall statue was moved from Munn Park, which is part of a historic district, to Veterans Park after the city began receiving complaints about the monument.
But David McCallister, spokesman for Save Southern Heritage - Florida, said plaintiffs will appeal the panel’s decision.
“Of course the transfer is an attempt to marginalize history,” McCallister told the Florida Record in an email. “We argue that it is part of the cancel culture and wave eracism that seeks to put patriotism, love of country and respect for veterans ‘in the closet.’”
Amid the current national debate about removing symbols of the Confederacy and racism, the 11th Circuit panel held that the plaintiffs, including individuals, Veterans Monuments of America Inc. and the director of Save Southern Heritage - Florida, Ken Daniel, lacked standing to pursue their First Amendment and due-process arguments.
“Following the district court’s decision (rejecting their claims), the plaintiffs failed to obtain (or even seek) a stay, and, by the time the case reached us, the city had proceeded to relocate the monument,” the three-judge panel said in its June 22 decision.
Other arguments about the city’s actions infringing on the preservation of Southern history and free speech from a Southern perspective are amorphous, the decision said.
“What exactly is the (or a) ‘Southern perspective’? What exactly was ‘the cause for which the Confederate veteran fought,’ and what exactly does it mean to ‘vindicate’ it?” the judges asked.
The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal of the First Amendment claims with prejudice, concluding that the court should have dismissed the claim without prejudice for a lack of jurisdiction. And it affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the due-process claim without prejudice.
“The same standing deficiencies that sunk the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim – namely, that their alleged injuries are neither concrete nor particularized – doom their due-process claim as well,” the decision states.