Case Name: Stanley J. DANIELS, a/k/a Rip Daniels; Boyd C. James, III; Emile Hoskins; Gary Holloway; Dixie Daniels and Willie Whitlock v. HARRISON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, In its Official Capacity
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1998-09-17
Citations: 722 So. 2d 136
Docket Number: No. 96-CA-01129-SCT
Parties: Stanley J. DANIELS, a/k/a Rip Daniels; Boyd C. James, III; Emile Hoskins; Gary Holloway; Dixie Daniels and Willie Whitlock v. HARRISON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, In its Official Capacity.
Judges: Before PRATHER, C.J., and SMITH and WALLER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 722
Pages: 136–141

Head Matter:
Stanley J. DANIELS, a/k/a Rip Daniels; Boyd C. James, III; Emile Hoskins; Gary Holloway; Dixie Daniels and Willie Whitlock v. HARRISON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, In its Official Capacity.
No. 96-CA-01129-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Sept. 17, 1998.
Carol L. Henderson, Gulfport, for Appellants.
Joseph R. Meadows, Gulfport, for Appel-lee.
Before PRATHER, C.J., and SMITH and WALLER, JJ.

Opinion:
PRATHER, Chief Justice,
for the Court:
J.STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶ 1. Stanley Daniels and five co-plaintiffs filed suit against the Harrison County Board of Supervisors, seeking to enjoin the Board from "carrying through with their intentions to fly the Confederate Battle Flag on the Mississippi Beaches and other public property located within Harrison County." The Confederate Flag was and is currently being displayed on a portion of the Gulf Coast beach known as "Eight Flags." The flags displayed at this location represent the eight governments, including the Confederate States of America, which have, at some point in history, claimed sovereignty over this area of the State.
¶2. On September 11, 1996, the Circuit Judge entered an order granting the Board's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the display of the Confederate Flag by the Board was not prohibited by law, statutory or otherwise. Daniels appealed the trial judge's ruling to this Court.
II. ISSUES
A. Whether the circuit court erred by ignoring inclusio unius est exclusio alterius in its analysis and construction of Miss.Code Ann. § 3-3-15 (1972).
¶ 3. This Court employs a de novo standard in reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper where there exist no genuine issues of material fact and judgment may be rendered as a matter of law. Mississippi Ethics Com'n v. Aseme, 583 So.2d 955, 957 (Miss.1991). In. the present appeal, there are no disputed issues of fact, and this Court is presented with a question of law.
¶ 4. Daniels argues that the display of the Confederate Battle Flag at Eight Flags is barred by a proper interpretation of stat ute. Specifically, Daniels argues that the trial court erred in failing to apply the doctrine of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius in its interpretation of Miss.Code Ann. § 3-3-15 (1972). MCA § 3-3-15 provides that:
The state flag may be displayed from all public buildings from sunrise to sunset; however, the state flag may be displayed from all public buildings twenty-four hours a day if properly illuminated. The state flag should not be displayed when the weather is inclement, except when an all-weather flag is displayed. The state flag shall receive all of the respect and ceremonious etiquette given the American flag. Provided, however, nothing in this section shall be construed so as to affect the precedence given to the flag of the United States of America.
Daniels notes that this Court held in Lee v. Alexander, 607 So.2d 30, 36 (Miss.1992) that "(w)here a statute enumerates and specifies the subject or things upon which it is to operate, it is to be construed as excluding from its effect all those not expressly mentioned or under a general clause ." Daniels concludes that, based upon this doctrine of statutory interpretation, "it is thus clear that MCA § 3-3-15 must be construed as excluding the Confederate or battle flag from its effect or delineating conditions under which the state flag may be flown."
¶5. This argument is without merit. In the view of this Court, MCA § 3-3-15 can not validly be interpreted as prohibiting the display of the Confederate Battle flag or any other flag. This statute was written to set guidelines for the display of the Mississippi state flag in a proper and respectful manner, and it contains no provisions which limit the display of other flags. It is clear that MCA § 3-3-15 is a statute of very limited scope, and there is nothing in its language to indicate that it should be broadly "interpreted" to bar the display of the Confederate Flag. The Circuit Judge correctly stated in his ruling granting summary judgment that there was "no violation" of the "statutes underpinning Plaintiffs complaint," and this point of error is accordingly overruled.
B. Whether the use of public funds to display a racially-offensive historical symbol violates public policy and existing case law.
¶ 6. Daniels argues that there are "compelling public policy" considerations against the display of the Confederate Flag at Eight Flags. Specifically, Daniels argues that:
The message sent by a local government's flying of the Confederate flag serves to chill its African-American citizens' exercise of their right to the franchise and to petition government for redress of grievances.
Daniels submits that the display of the Confederate Flag at Eight Flags is offensive to many residents of the Gulf Coast, particularly those of African-American descent. Nevertheless, he fails to cite any basis on which this Court might conclude that the display of this flag is unlawful.
¶ 7. The only authority cited by Daniels in this point of error is the United States Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938), but this decision has little if any factual similarity or relevance to the present case. Moreover, Daniels' argument that the flying of the single Confederate flag at Eight Flags "serves to chill its African-American citizens's exercise of their right to the franchise and to petition government for redress of grievances" has been rejected by at least one Federal Court of Appeals in a similar context.
¶ 8. In NAACP v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir.1990), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an attempt by the NAACP to bar the display of the confederate flag by the State of Alabama based upon many of the same Constitutional arguments presented herein. In Hunt, the Court of Appeals held that the present issue was a " 'political matter,' the remedy for which lies within the democratic process . and the voting rights of all its citizens." Hunt, 891 F.2d at 1565. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that "(t)he federal judiciary is not empowered to make decisions based on social sensitivity. Because the NAACP has advanced no proof that the flag prohibits its members from speaking or punishes them from speaking, the district court properly granted summary judgment." Id.
¶ 9. As in Hunt, the record in the present case contains no indication that the flying of the single Confederate Flag at Eight Flags serves to deprive any citizens of this State of any constitutionally protected right. Daniels is unable to present any applicable constitutional, statutory, or common law authority to support his position. The circuit judge correctly ruled that "(n)either the Plaintiffs disapproval of the Board's choice of the battle flag to represent the Confederacy, of which Mississippi was undeniably a part, nor their finding the Board's choice offensive, makes the Board's action unlawful." The ruling of the trial court is affirmed.
¶ 10. JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.
SULLIVAN and PITTMAN, P.JJ, and BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH, MILLS and WALLER, JJ., concur.
McRAE, J., concurs in result only.
BANKS, J., specially concurs with separate written opinion.