Does the Court's ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association afford the owner of a monument to have standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without having to prove land ownership?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the Petitioner Shreveport Chapter #237 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (“UDC”) filed its lawsuit in response to a deprivation of its First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment was based on the actions of seven commissioners of the Caddo Parish Commission (“Respondent”) who voted on Resolution No. 69 of 2017 “hereinafter Resolution 69”). Resolution No. 69 ordered the UDC to remove its Confederate Monument from the front of the local courthouse. At the time of the Fifth Circuit decision, this Court had not ruled on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association. See, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 588 U.S. ___ (2019). Under American Humanist Association, as owner of the monument the UDC does not have to be the land owner in order to have standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And the UDC should have two affirmative defense: i) the affirmative defense that it has stood on their property for almost a century without controversy and is now too fragile to move; and ii) the affirmative defense of the federal common law doctrine of /aches. At the time of the Fifth Circuit’s decisions, this Court’s decision in Herrera v. Wyoming was not announced. See, Herrera v. Wyoming, 587 U.S. __ (2019). In the instant matter the treaty between the U.S. and the Caddo Nation remains in effect. Under Herrera v. Wyoming, the lower courts do not have the authority to abrogate a treaty with Native Americans without express Congressional approval. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Court’s ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, afford the owner ii of a monument to have standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without having to prove land ownership? 2. Does the Court’s ruling in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, afford the owner of a monument two affirmative defenses: i) the affirmative defense that the monument has stood for almost a century without controversy and is now too fragile to move; and ii) the affirmative defense of the federal common law doctrine of /aches? 3. Does the district court have the authority to abrogate the Caddo Nation Treaty without the U.S. Congress stating it in explicit terms under Herrera v. Wyoming?