RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the state can remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a prominent spot in its capital city, saying “values change and public policy changes too” in a democracy.
The 7-0 decision cited testimony from historians that the enormous statue was erected in 1890 to honor the Southern white citizenry’s defense of a pre-Civil War life that depended on slavery and the subjugation of Black people.
More than a century later, its continued display “communicates principles that many believe to be inconsistent with the values the Commonwealth currently wishes to express," the justices said.
The high court’s decision came in two lawsuits filed by Virginia residents who attempted to block Gov. Ralph Northam's order to remove the bronze equestrian sculpture, which shows Lee in military attire atop a massive stone pedestal.
Virginia promised to forever maintain the statue in the 1887 and 1890 deeds that transferred its ownership to the state. But the justices said that obligation no longer applies.
“Those restrictive covenants are unenforceable as contrary to public policy and for being unreasonable because their effect is to compel government speech, by forcing the Commonwealth to express, in perpetuity, a message with which it now disagrees,” the justices wrote.
Northam announced his decision in June 2020, 10 days after George Floyd's death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer sparked protests over police brutality and racism in cities across the country, including Richmond. The nationally recognized statue became the epicenter of a protest movement in Virginia after Floyd's death and its base is now covered with graffiti.
Separate lawsuits were filed by a group of residents who own property near the statue and William Gregory, a descendant of signatories to the 1890 deed that transferred the statue, pedestal and land they sit on to the state.
Gregory argued that the state agreed to “faithfully guard” and “affectionately protect” the statue. And five property owners argued that the governor is bound by an 1889 joint resolution of the Virginia General Assembly that accepted the statue and agreed to maintain it as a monument to Lee.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys told the justices during a June 8 hearing the governor exceeded his authority under the Virginia Constitution. Attorney General Mark Herring’s office countered that a small group of private citizens cannot force the state to maintain a monument that no longer reflects its values.
The high court sided with the governor, citing testimony from historians who said the statue was erected as a monument to the Confederacy’s “Lost Cause” and is now widely seen as a symbol of racial injustice.
“The essence of our republican form of government is for the sovereign people to elect representatives, who then chart the public policy of the Commonwealth or of the Nation. Democracy is inherently dynamic. Values change and public policy changes too. The Government of the Commonwealth is entitled to select the views that it supports and the values that it wants to express," Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn wrote.
Virginia Democrats cheered the court's ruling. Northam's statement called it “a tremendous win for the people of Virginia.”
“For far too long, the Lee statue stood tall in our capital and represented nothing but division and white supremacy — but it is finally coming down,” tweeted state Sen. Louise Lucas, one of the state’s most powerful Black lawmakers.
Patrick McSweeney, an attorney for the residents, declined to comment immediately, saying in an email that his clients have to review the court's rulings. He did not say whether they are ring appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gregory's attorney, Joseph Blackburn Jr., did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
“I think this is the end of the line for the plaintiffs,” said University of Virginia law professor Richard Schragger, who has followed the cases closely. He said the property owners’ lawsuit contains one contracts claim under the U.S. Constitution that could be the basis of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he didn’t think it would succeed, and “the Gregory plaintiff has nowhere else to go for sure.”
