Plaintiff filed suit under Paragraph V of the Georgia Constitution, which waives sovereign immunity for declaratory relief against the State and local governments on certain limited grounds.
Sovereign immunity is hereby waived for actions in the superior court seeking declaratory relief from acts of the state or any agency, authority, branch, board, bureau, commission, department, office, or public corporation of this state or officer or employee thereof or any county, consolidated government, or municipality of this state or officer or employee thereof outside the scope of lawful authority or in violation of the laws or the Constitution of this state or the Constitution of the United States. Sovereign immunity is further waived so that a court awarding declaratory relief pursuant to this Paragraph may, only after awarding declaratory relief, enjoin such acts to enforce its judgment. Such waiver of sovereign immunity under this Paragraph shall apply to past, current, and prospective acts which occur on or after January 1, 2021.
According to the Court, to success on a Paragraph V claim, the plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of declaratory — including uncertainty as to the plaintiff’s future conduct. Here, the plaintiff was unable to show any uncertainty of their own actions. Their claim sought to address the City’s future conduct.
“To state a claim for declaratory judgment, a party need only allege the existence of a justiciable controversy in which future conduct depends on resolution of uncertain legal relations.” Cobb County v. Floam, 319 Ga. 89, 97 (2), 901 S.E.2d 512 (2024) (citation and punctuation omitted). See also OCGA § 9-4-2. But, “[w]here the party seeking declaratory judgment does not show it is in a position of uncertainty as to an alleged right, dismissal of the declaratory judgment action is proper[.]” Baker v. City of Marietta, 271 Ga. 210, 214 (1), 518 S.E.2d 879 (1999).
*4 Here, the Sons of Confederate Veterans filed their declaratory judgment action asking “the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and require [the City] to provide whatever proof they have that they do not own the monument.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans state that the monument is a public monument, and they do not claim any ownership interest in the monument. The Sons of Confederate Veterans face no uncertainty as to their own future conduct, but rather they seek an adjudication only of issues that will impact the future conduct of the City. See SJN Properties, 296 Ga. at 803 (2) (b) (iii), 770 S.E.2d 832. As a declaration of rights would not direct the plaintiffs’ future conduct, their claim for declaratory relief cannot be maintained. See id.; Floam, 319 Ga. at 101 (2), 901 S.E.2d 512. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ declaratory judgment action.
Lewis v. City of Brunswick, A24A1572, 2025 WL 717369, at *3–4 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2025)
