Southern Poverty Law Center - Mississippi

Ann Saunders, et al. v. State of Mississippi, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Fri, 22 Sep 2023 17:08:44 +0000

After Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves signed legislation creating a special judicial district within the city of Jackson where judges would be appointed rather than elected – and ultimately disenfranchise Black voters – the Southern Poverty Law Center filed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit by other advocacy groups challenging the action as a violation of the state constitution.

The legislation, known as HB 1020, carved out the special judicial district within a largely white and affluent part of the city, which is 83% Black. It also allowed for the appointment – rather than the election – of four judges to the Hinds County Circuit Court by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court. What’s more, the four judges, unlike elected judges, could reside outside Hinds County, which is 74% Black.

The ��Ҵ�ý and Mississippi Votes, a nonprofit voter registration and civic engagement organization; and Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP filed the amicus brief on June 13, 2023, after the lawsuit challenging HB 1020 was appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

The brief describes how the appointment of the four judges violates the state constitution, which requires the election of circuit court judges. It notes that the judges for the special judicial district are not temporary or “special judges,” who might be appointed, but are judges with all the powers of an elected circuit court judge serving for almost the same length of time.

By creating unelected de facto circuit court judges, which usurps the power of elected judges and dilutes their role on the court, HB 1020 violates the separation of powers in the state, the brief argues. It also describes how legal precedents from other states have found similar statutes in violation of those state constitutions.

The Supreme Court of Mississippi’s ruling agreed that the appointment of the “special circuit judges” was unconstitutional. The justices noted that they saw “nothing special or unique” about the judges – “certainly nothing expressly tethering them to a specific judicial need or exigency.”

Date Filed

June 13, 2023

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - MS

Ann Saunders, et al. v. State of Mississippi, et al.

Case Number

2023-CA-00584-SCT

Disability Rights Mississippi, et al. v. Lynn Fitch, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Tue, 27 Jun 2023 21:26:19 +0000

After Mississippi enacted a law that violates the right of residents with disabilities to receive voting assistance from the person of their choice, the Southern Poverty Law Center and its partners challenged the law in federal court.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Disability Rights Mississippi, the League of Women Voters of Mississippi and three voters in the state, describes how the law, also known as SB 2358, applies harsh criminal penalties to Mississippians who help members of their communities vote by absentee ballot. The law, signed by Gov. Tate Reeves in 2023, only allows election officials, postal workers, family members or caregivers to assist a voter with submitting an absentee ballot. Friends, neighbors and volunteers for voter services groups are barred by the law from providing such assistance. What’s more, the failure of the law to define the term caregiver threatens to chill voter assistance from staff of health care institutions.

The complaint describes how the law violates Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which recognizes the right of voters with disabilities to receive voting assistance from the person of their choice. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division.

Date Filed

May 31, 2023

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - MS

Co-Counsel

Mississippi Center for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Mississippi and Disability Rights Mississippi.

Active Case

Disability Rights Mississippi, et al. v. Lynn Fitch, et al.

Case Number

3:23-cv-350-HTW-LGI

Dyamone White, et al. v. State Board of Election Commissioners, et al.

rudy.isaza_2663 — Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:07:54 +0000

The Southern Poverty Law Center and allied organizations filed a federal lawsuit challenging the voting district lines used to elect members of the Mississippi Supreme Court. The suit contends that the lines, which have not been adjusted in 35 years, dilute the voting strength of Black voters.

The state’s population is nearly 40% Black, a greater proportion than any other state. However, in the 100 years since Mississippi has elected members to its Supreme Court, there have been only four Black justices to serve – and never more than one at a time. The suit was filed on behalf of Mississippi civic leaders.

Because the district lines unfairly divide up the state’s Black population, they violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the U.S. Constitution, according to the suit. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act makes it unlawful to water down the voting strength of racial groups. The state’s Black population is sufficiently numerous and concentrated to form a majority in one of the three at-large voting districts that Mississippi uses to elect its nine Supreme Court justices. Yet none of the three districts has a Black majority. And voting is so racially polarized in Mississippi that in the districts as configured, Black voters typically cannot elect candidates of their choice.

The plaintiffs are seeking to have the districts redrawn so that Black voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In particular, current District 1, which includes Jackson and part of the Mississippi Delta, could readily be redrawn in a manner consistent with traditional districting principles, to have a majority of eligible Black voters. This modest change would keep the state’s overall three-district scheme for Supreme Court elections intact, while ensuring that Supreme Court elections comply with federal law and allow Black Mississippians an opportunity to elect representative candidates.

Date Filed

April 25, 2022

Issue Area

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - MS

Co-Counsel

The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Mississippi and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Active Case

Dyamone White, et al. v. State Board of Election Commissioners, et al.

Dennis Hopkins, et al. v. Secretary of State Michael Watson

hannah.baldwin_1097 — Tue, 27 Mar 2018 21:51:38 +0000

More than a century ago, Mississippi adopted a state constitution that was specifically intended to prevent formerly enslaved people and their descendants from gaining political influence, in part by blocking their access to the ballot box. A provision of that 1890 constitution – a lifetime voting ban for anyone convicted of certain crimes – continued that mission into modern times: Between 1994 and 2017, nearly 50,000 Mississippians were banned for life from voting due to conviction of a disqualifying offense.

Sixty percent of Mississippians banned from voting had completed their sentences. In recent decades, Black voting-age Mississippians had been disenfranchised at over twice the rate of white voting-age Mississippians.

The suit, which was granted class certification in 2019, contends that the lifetime voting ban violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment; the First Amendment’s right to political expression and association; and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that it arbitrarily grants or deprives citizens of the right to vote and that it was intended to discriminate on the basis of race.

Mississippi also has a legislative “suffrage” process that allows state lawmakers to restore someone’s voting rights. Only a handful of citizens succeed in persuading a legislator to introduce a bill on their behalf. Of the bills introduced, most failed to win the required votes. Between 2013 and 2017, Mississippi legislators have voted to restore the right to vote to just 15 Mississippians.

The suit intended to help people like Dennis Hopkins, one of six named plaintiffs. He was convicted of grand larceny more than 20 years ago. Now, he owns his towing business. He’s been a parent to foster kids and is raising eight children with his wife, a schoolteacher. He’s spent countless hours volunteering as a coach for youth sports – even founding a local peewee football team. But he gets no say in the political leadership of his city, state or nation.

“I have paid Mississippi what I owe it in full, but I still can’t cast my vote for my children’s future,” he says. “I feel like a branded man.”

In its ruling, the federal district court recognized the lawsuit’s race-based equal-protection argument. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5^th Circuit held that Mississippi’s lifetime voting ban was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision, issued Aug. 4, 2023, has the ability to restore the right to vote to tens of thousands of Mississippians.

The court noted that the voting ban ensures that formerly incarcerated people “will never be fully rehabilitated.” The decision also said that “Mississippi stands as an outlier among its sister states, bucking a clear and consistent trend in our [n]ation against permanent disenfranchisement.”

On Sept. 28, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit decided to rehear the case.

The law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP is co-counsel in the case.

Date Filed

March 27, 2018

Status

Ongoing litigation

Court where filed

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Northern Division

Issue Area

Criminal Justice Reform

Voting Rights

Voting Rights - MS

Plaintiffs

Dennis Hopkins; Herman Parker Jr.; Walter Wayne Kuhn Jr.; Byron Demond Coleman; Jon O'Neal; and Earnest Wilhite individually and on behalf of a class of all other similarly situated

Defendants

Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann

Co-Counsel

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Active Case

Dennis Hopkins, et al. v. Secretary of State Michael Watson

Case Number

348CV188CWRLRA

Araujo v. Governor Phil Bryant

alex.amend — Mon, 11 Jul 2016 21:40:51 +0000

Mississippi funded its charter schools through an unconstitutional scheme that diverted public tax dollars from traditional public schools. The ��Ҵ�ý filed a lawsuit in state court to end the funding system.

The lawsuit called for the court to strike down the funding provisions of the Mississippi Charter School Act (CSA). The Mississippi Constitution required schools to be under the supervision of the state and local boards of education to receive public funding. But under the CSA, charter schools received public funding even though they are exempt from the oversight of the state Board of Education, the Mississippi Department of Education, and local boards of education.

Charter schools in Mississippi were accountable to the Mississippi Charter School Authorizer Board, a body that received 3 percent of the public funding that goes to charter schools.

Two charter schools were operating in Mississippi at the time of the filing, both within the boundaries of the Jackson Public School District (JPS). In one school year, more than $1.85 million was diverted from the district to fund them. That amount could have paid the salaries of 42 public school teachers, according to the complaint. Given that a third charter school was set to open within JPS’s boundaries, the district stood to lose more than $4 million in the 2016-17 school year, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit warned that the opening of more charter schools would compound the financial harm. There were applications pending for four more charter schools when the lawsuit was filed in July 2016. Each charter school would be located within the Jackson Public School District, drawing more funding from the district.

By June 2019, the case was before the Mississippi Supreme Court. During oral arguments, the ��Ҵ�ý noted that the question before the court was not whether the Legislature had the authority to allow charter schools, but whether the funding mechanism chosen by the Legislature violated the Mississippi Constitution. Under sharp questioning by the justices, the ��Ҵ�ý outlined how the funding scheme required school districts to give away property tax revenue to schools over which they had no control.

Mississippi Supreme Court oral arguments

Date Filed

July 11, 2016

Status

Active

Court where filed

First Judicial District of the Chancery Court of Hinds County

Issue Area

Children's Rights

Araujo v. Governor Phil Bryant

Tristan Broussard v. First Loan Tower LLC

admin — Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:13:21 +0000

Tristan Broussard, a young transgender man, was fired from his manager trainee position at Tower Loan, a Mississippi-based finance company, for not agreeing to dress and be treated as a woman.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and allies filed a federal discrimination lawsuit alleging the company’s firing of Broussard violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

An arbitrator ruled in favor of Broussard in November 2016.

The arbitrator found that the company had violated Title VII, noting that Broussard “involuntarily resigned in order to escape an intolerable and illegal employment requirement imposed by the corporate office – that he act and dress only as a female pursuant to [the company’s] personnel policies,” The order directed the company to pay Broussard economic damages equaling more than a year’s salary, along with additional monetary damages for emotional distress.

Tower Loan, a privately held company with 180 locations in five states, hired Broussard in February 2014 as a manager trainee in the company’s Lake Charles, Louisiana, branch. After he started the job, company officials learned that he is transgender and asked him to sign a document stating that his “preference to act and dress as male” was not “in compliance with Tower Loan’s personnel policies,” according to the complaint.

Broussard refused and was fired.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the primary agency charged by Congress with interpreting and enforcing Title VII, has made clear that employers cannot fire or refuse to hire someone solely because they are transgender. Broussard earlier lodged a complaint with the EEOC, which concluded Tower Loan’s action violated Title VII.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco-based Altshuler Berzon LLP and New Orleans-based Delaney & Robb Attorneys at Law LLC served as co-counsel in the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Date Filed

April 13, 2015

Issue Area

LGBTQ Rights

Plaintiffs

Tristan Broussard

Defendants

First Loan Tower LLC

Tristan Broussard v. First Loan Tower LLC

D.H. v. Moss Point School District, et al.

admin — Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:14:05 +0000

Destin Holmes was subjected to pervasive anti-LGBT bullying and harassment by fellow students, faculty and even administrators within the schools of Mississippi’s Moss Point School District. The harassment became so severe Destin was eventually driven out of school. The ��Ҵ�ý filed a federal lawsuit on her behalf to end the bullying and harassment in the district.

The lawsuit describes how Destin temporarily left the district in March 2012 to be homeschooled after the then-principal at Magnolia Junior High School called her a “pathetic fool” and told her, “I don’t want a dyke in this school.” It also outlines how Destin and other students perceived as LGBT were subjected to anti-LGBT slurs on a daily basis and were physically threatened or attacked by peers.

While many of these abuses occurred in front of teachers or were reported to school officials, school personnel did little to stop the abuse. The ��Ҵ�ý demanded in March 2013 that the district take immediate action to end the bullying and harassment. The demand came after an investigation found that district students, faculty and administrators targeted LGBT students because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation and nonconformity to gender stereotypes.

A mutually agreeable resolution that would protect and preserve the rights of students like Destin was not reached.

During Destin’s time at Magnolia Junior High School, students and district staff called her slurs such as “it,” “freak” and “he-she.” She heard such insults as many as 20 times a day. She also was denied access to the girls’ restroom by a teacher. Another teacher even refused to allow her to participate in a classroom activity where teams were divided by gender because Destin – according to the teacher – was an “in-between it.”

Even after Destin threatened suicide, school officials failed to take appropriate action. When a social worker providing mental health services for Destin met with the then-principal about the need to stop the harassment, the principal said he wouldn’t follow the social worker’s suggestions because “when you are in my school, you follow my lead since I allow you to be here.”

After leaving Magnolia Junior High School in March 2012, Destin was home-schooled until it became too much of a financial burden for her family. After returning to the district as a student at the Moss Point High School, Destin continued to face similar harassment.

The lawsuit, which asserts the district violated Destin’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, also describes anti-LGBT bullying encountered by other district students. These incidents include a transgender student who was attacked and ridiculed, as well as a gay male student assaulted by students because he was open about his orientation.

Date Filed

December 17, 2013

Issue Area

LGBTQ Rights

D.H. v. Moss Point School District, et al.

Pat “PJ” Newton v. Town of Shannon, et al.

admin — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:38:37 +0000

After receiving multiple requests to reopen her business, Pat Newton decided in 2013 to reopen O’Hara’s, a sports bar and grill that mainly served LGBT customers in the small community of Shannon, Miss., until it closed several years ago.

When Newton, a lesbian, went before the town’s board of aldermen for her business license – a hearing she believed to be routine – she encountered a hostile crowd of 30 to 40 people.

Newton was confronted with questions laced with insults by citizens and aldermen. One citizen asked how Newton could call herself a Christian. Another asked whether she would let her daughter go into “a bar like that.”

At the end of the hearing, the board was informed that Newton had met all the requirements for her application but the application could be denied on public health and safety concerns. The board denied the application by a 4-to-1 vote – even though no legitimate evidence regarding public health and safety was presented.

The ��Ҵ�ý demanded that the board reconsider the vote at its next meeting or face a federal lawsuit. In a letter to the board and mayor, the ��Ҵ�ý outlined the unconstitutional behavior Newton encountered. The next day, the aldermen refused to reconsider the license. The mayor also refused a request to explain why the license was being denied.

The ��Ҵ�ý filed a federal lawsuit against the town and its leaders for violating Newton’s right to free speech and equal protection under the First and 14^th Amendments. It notes that the town cannot deny a license because of hostility toward members of a particular group. The town not only denied Newtown’s license but denied earlier requests to open other LGBT establishments while allowing bars unaffiliated with LGBT people to operate in the town.

One alderman stated that the town, which struggles with a shrinking tax base, welcomed the prospect of fighting a federal lawsuit rather than allow a gay bar, which would generate tax money, to operate within the town.

The lawsuit also accuses the mayor, town and aldermen of conspiring to violate Newton’s civil rights. It describes how city leaders encouraged townspeople to oppose the license application and convened an unannounced meeting to close ranks against Newton before a hearing during which she was expected to request the aldermen to reconsider her license application.

The parties in the PJ Newton case settled the case in May 2014 to the parties' mutual satisfaction. Both sides agreed to keep the terms confidential. The case is now closed.

Date Filed

October 01, 2013

Issue Area

LGBTQ Rights

Co-Counsel

Hogan Lovells

Pat “PJ” Newton v. Town of Shannon, et al.

Dockery v. Epps

admin — Thu, 30 May 2013 16:26:17 +0000

East Mississippi Correctional Facility Case

Prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility in Meridian endured filthy and dangerous conditions at the for-profit prison, which operated “in a perpetual state of crisis” where prisoners were at “grave risk of death and loss of limbs,” even resorting to setting fires to receive medical attention. The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the prisoners that described how prison officials had known of these conditions for years but failed to protect the prisoners.

The facility, operated by the Management and Training Corporation with health care provided by Health Assurance, LLC, is supposed to provide intensive treatment to the state’s seriously mentally ill prisoners, many of whom are locked down in long-term solitary confinement.

The lawsuit describes a facility where prisoners were often locked in filthy cells and ignored even when they were suffering from serious medical issues. Many cells lacked light and working toilets, forcing prisoners to use trays or plastic bags that are tossed through slots in their cell doors. Rats often climbed over prisoners’ beds. Some prisoners even captured the rats, put them on makeshift leashes and sold them as pets to other prisoners.

Although designated as a facility to care for prisoners with special needs and serious mental illness, the East Mississippi Correctional Facility denied prisoners even the most rudimentary mental health care services. One prisoner is now blind after the facility failed to provide his glaucoma medications and take him to a specialist. Another prisoner had part of his finger amputated after he was stabbed and developed gangrene.

Prisoners also are underfed. According to the lawsuit, a correctional health expert notified the Mississippi Department of Corrections of this problem after reviewing prisoner records that showed a pattern of prisoners losing significant amounts of weight at the prison – some more than 20 or 30 pounds.

Despite evidence demonstrating the adverse effect of long-term solitary confinement on prisoners’ mental health, the prison placed prisoners in isolation for weeks, months or years at a time with little stimulation or access to showers and medical care. Prisoners in solitary confinement frequently set fires or flood their cells to get attention for medical treatment.

Date Filed

May 30, 2013

Issue Area

Criminal Justice Reform

Co-Counsel

American Civil Liberties Union, the Law Office of Elizabeth Alexander and Covington & Burling LLP

Active Case

Dockery v. Epps

E.H. v. Mississippi Department of Education

admin — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:36:01 +0000

Almost two years after finding that Mississippi’s Jackson Public School District violated federal special education law, the Mississippi Department of Education had failed to hold the district accountable and ensure that its students with disabilities were receiving services mandated by federal law.

The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a federal class action lawsuit in 2012 against the department on behalf of these students to ensure they receive the services they need to succeed in the classroom.

The lawsuit described how the department failed to enforce its own December 2010 decision, which found the school district in violation of major components of federal special education law. The department’s decision – issued in response to a complaint filed by the ��Ҵ�ý – required the school district to develop and execute a plan to correct these violations within 12 months. The Mississippi Department of Education was bound by state and federal law to bring Jackson public schools into compliance.

The lawsuit also explained how students with disabilities in Jackson public schools often languished three or four grades behind their peers. These students were frequently denied access to critical educational services and related services, such as counseling, even though federal law requires school districts to provide these services. The district also violated the law by removing students from classrooms, often as punishment for behavior related to their disabilities.

The Southern Disability Law Center and Disability Rights Mississippi joined the ��Ҵ�ý in filing the lawsuit.

Southern Poverty Law Center - Mississippi

Ann Saunders, et al. v. State of Mississippi, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Ann Saunders, et al. v. State of Mississippi, et al.

Case Number

Disability Rights Mississippi, et al. v. Lynn Fitch, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Disability Rights Mississippi, et al. v. Lynn Fitch, et al.

Case Number

Dyamone White, et al. v. State Board of Election Commissioners, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Dyamone White, et al. v. State Board of Election Commissioners, et al.

Dennis Hopkins, et al. v. Secretary of State Michael Watson

Date Filed

Status

Court where filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Dennis Hopkins, et al. v. Secretary of State Michael Watson

Case Number

Araujo v. Governor Phil Bryant

Date Filed

Status

Court where filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Araujo v. Governor Phil Bryant

Tristan Broussard v. First Loan Tower LLC

Date Filed

Issue Area

Plaintiffs

Defendants

Related Documents

Tristan Broussard v. First Loan Tower LLC

D.H. v. Moss Point School District, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

D.H. v. Moss Point School District, et al.

Pat “PJ” Newton v. Town of Shannon, et al.

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Pat “PJ” Newton v. Town of Shannon, et al.

Dockery v. Epps

East Mississippi Correctional Facility Case

Date Filed

Issue Area

Related Documents

Co-Counsel

Dockery v. Epps

E.H. v. Mississippi Department of Education

Date Filed

Issue Area

E.H. v. Mississippi Department of Education