Legal validity, historical accuracy, moral evaluation

These answer different questions.

Legal validity

Question:

Was the law enacted according to constitutional procedure?

Example:

Parliament passes a property law following constitutional requirements.

Legally,

it is valid.

Historical accuracy

Question:

Is the historical claim true?

Suppose the law says

Temple X existed here in 1100.

Historians may later show

no evidence supports that claim.

The law may remain legally valid

even though its historical premise is disputed.

Moral evaluation

Question:

Is this law ethically justified?

Example:

A law may be constitutional,

historically accurate,

yet many people still regard it as unjust.

So

legal,

historical,

and moral questions are distinct.

Sometimes they coincide

Example.

A court returns stolen property.

The evidence is strong.

The law is correctly applied.

Most people think the result is fair.

Here

legal validity,

historical accuracy,

and moral judgment

all point in the same direction.

Sometimes they do not.

Example.

A law was constitutionally enacted decades ago.

Later,

historians discover that its factual justification relied on forged documents.

Or many citizens come to regard the law as morally unjust.

The law may still remain legally valid until changed or struck down.