Jeffrey Breit, a Virginia Beach attorney representing Stoney, said Thursday’s decision to allow the city of Charlottesville to remove the statues supported the position of Richmond and Stoney city councils.
“We feel good about the opinion … the argument helps us wonderfully,” claims Breit. He added that the ruling shows that “if the city council wants to dismantle them, that is their prerogative”.
Patrick McSweeney, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, disagreed. He said the Charlottesville ruling did not affect his clients’ case regarding monuments removed from city property or separate efforts to prevent Governor Ralph Northam from removing the state-owned Lee statue .
“This has nothing to do with our case,” said McSweeney on Thursday of the Supreme Court ruling.
The Virginia Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal on the proposed removal of the Lee Memorial in Richmond. However, the judges have not yet decided whether to consider McSweeney’s motion to review Marchant’s decision regarding the monuments removed.
The Lee statue is on state property and the remote monuments were on city property.
Breit said he believes the Virginia Supreme Court will likely not agree to review the case regarding the Distant Monuments because the court was unwilling to address the same issue twice, “or even a cousin issue, if.” they believe it is [already] clearly spoken. “