A longstanding dispute over a Confederate monument outside a county courthouse has resulted in a recent appellate court decision, highlighting ongoing debates about historical symbols and their place on public property. Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the North Carolina Court of Appeals after a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Gaston County, allowing the monument to remain at its current location near the main entrance to the county courthouse.
The complaint was brought by several organizations—including the Gaston County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the local chapter of the National Association for Black Veterans (NABVETS), and Eta Mu Lambda Chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity—as well as three individual residents. The appeal was heard in May 2025 following an order entered by Judge Robert C. Ervin in January 2024.
According to court documents, plaintiffs initially filed suit in 2020 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Gaston County to remove a Confederate monument first erected in 1912 outside its historic courthouse. In 1998, officials moved it to stand outside the new courthouse. Plaintiffs allege that “the monument’s continued presence violates several provisions of the North Carolina Constitution, including the Open Courts Clause and Equal Protection Clause.” They further argue that it symbolizes “an era of slavery, secession, and white supremacy,” referencing statements made at its original dedication ceremony as well as comments from county officials acknowledging its controversial history.
The legal battle centers on whether North Carolina’s Monument Protection Law prohibits removal or relocation of such monuments from public property. This statute states that “[a]n object of remembrance located on public property may not be permanently removed” except under limited circumstances—such as threats to public safety certified by an official building inspector. Plaintiffs maintain that exceptions within this law should allow for removal given alleged safety concerns, noting incidents requiring significant security expenditures by Gaston County during protests near the site.
Plaintiffs’ claims include allegations under multiple sections of the state constitution: equal protection, anti-race discrimination provisions, misuse of taxpayer money for unconstitutional purposes, anti-secession clauses, due process (Law of the Land), and open courts guarantees. During proceedings, some claims were dropped or abandoned on appeal; notably, challenges based on public purpose and due process were not pursued further.
In response to these claims, Gaston County denied most allegations and argued it lacked authority under state law to remove or alter the monument without meeting statutory exceptions. The county also sought declaratory judgment affirming its compliance with all relevant laws.
After reviewing evidence submitted by both sides—including affidavits from experts discussing psychological harm caused by Confederate symbols—the trial court granted summary judgment for Gaston County. The judge found no genuine issues of material fact remained for trial and determined that none of the exceptions within North Carolina’s Monument Protection Law applied in this instance. While acknowledging evidence suggesting discriminatory intent behind erection and maintenance of the monument, both at its inception and today, Judge Ervin concluded that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any resulting “meaningful disparate impact along racial lines” affecting judicial outcomes or access to justice.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that even if physical access is not denied by such monuments, their presence creates psychological barriers undermining perceptions of fairness within judicial proceedings—thus violating open courts guarantees under Article I Section 18. They cited survey data showing Black residents report more negative feelings toward Confederate monuments than White residents and referenced expert testimony about potential deterrent effects on participation in jury service or other court functions.
However, drawing upon precedent set in North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. Alamance County (2024), Judge Stroud wrote for the appellate panel that “the Open Courts Clause does not prohibit placement of an object of historical remembrance in or around a courthouse.” The opinion emphasized that prior cases interpreting this clause focus on tangible barriers such as closure or denial of access—not subjective perceptions—even when those perceptions are deeply felt within affected communities.
Similarly, with respect to equal protection claims under Article I Section 19—which requires proof both discriminatory intent and actual disparate impact—the appellate court found insufficient evidence linking maintenance or construction of this specific monument with concrete harms such as denial or impairment in judicial proceedings for Black residents compared with others. Survey results relied upon by plaintiffs did not specifically address experiences unique to Gaston County nor document instances where anyone was actually deterred from accessing court services because of the monument’s presence.
As a result, summary judgment was affirmed against all remaining claims advanced by plaintiffs regarding both open courts violations and equal protection arguments related to construction or continued display of the Confederate statue at issue.
The plaintiffs were represented by Gagan Gupta and Abraham Rubert-Schewel from Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owen PLLC; Stuart M. Paynter and Cheryl D. Comer from Paynter Law Firm PLLC. Attorneys Bradley K. Overcash and Emily L. Poe from Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP represented Gaston County. The case is identified as No. COA24-818.
Source: COA24818_NAACP_v_Gaston_County_Opinion_North_Carolina_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
