Opinion ID: 1652268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the use of public funds to display a racially-offensive historical symbol violates public policy and existing case law.

Text: ¶ 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.