Offense is not a valid legal argument with monuments

Published June 11, 2025 4:55pm ET



A federal appeals court in Jacksonville will soon revisit a question that has long plagued Southern public life: the fate of Confederate monuments. Attorney Eric Johnson Jr., whose father was the attorney of Martin Luther King Jr., argues that the display of Confederate monuments on public property violates the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that the city should stop investing in maintaining them.

The sticking point? Johnson bases his case on a “stigmatic injury,” holding that the monuments inflict “deep repulsion, disheartenment, and intimidation.” Unfortunately for him, sentiment rarely dictates legal precedent for removing public historical markers, no matter how Confederate they may be.

Already a print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account

Trusted reporting.Unlimited access.

Subscribe for full access to Washington Examiner coverage, expert political analysis, and subscriber-only journalism.

Get Unlimited Access

Already a member? Log in

Cancel anytime.