The CCID Court is back in business after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the NAACP's request for an injunction against the creation of court today. Although the Court issued an opinion, the nutshell version is the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the creation of the new court because they suffered no injury.
HB #1020 created a special inferior court to hear misdemeanor cases and initial appearances in the CCID. The Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court appoints the CCID Court judge(s) while the Attorney General appoints the CCID Court prosecutors. The new court did not sit well with the NAACP so it asked U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate to bar the creation of the CCID Court on January 1, 2024, arguing the court violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Judge Wingate held a hearing on December 19 and promised to rule on the request by the end of the year. However, Judge Wingate did not move fast enough for the NAACP so it filed an emergency request for an injunction against the new court last week. Judge Wingate held a quick hearing and denied the emergency request.Unbeknownst to this court and (apparently) plaintiffs, the district court did issue an order on December 31, 2023, denying plaintiffs' motion.1 Though the state defendants had raised several defenses to plaintiffs' motion,2 the district court found that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits for want of standing. On January 3, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended notice of appeal in light of the district court's order. Plaintiffs again request an injunction pending appeal.We now vacate that temporary administrative stay and deny both motions for an injunction pending appeal.
The Court notes Judge Wingate's clerk entered the order denying the injunction at "7:42 PM" on January 31, 2023, a little more than four hours before the new law took effect.
To obtain an injunction, the plaintiffs must have standing. The Court held the NAACP and the plaintiffs it represents* lacked such standing. The NAACP et al suffered no injury. Although they argued the CCID Court lacked accountability since the judge and prosecutors were not appointed by the Mayor, the Court ruled there was no case law supporting their position nor did they have "any legally protected interest in the court's accountability.
The Court said just because the CCID Court is not accountable to Jackson officials does not mean the plaintiffs suffered an injury. The Court slammed the door on the NAACP's argument:
Their first assertion, that H.B. 1020 takes away power from local offi cials, has no basis in fact. The challenged legislation creates a new CCID court, staffed with a newly appointed judge and newly appointed prosecutors. Plaintiffs have not shown that H.B. 1020 alters or affects-in any way-the method of appointment for any municipal court inJackson. Nothing has been taken away from Jackson's local governing authority.
The Court also said something else that could apply to the airport takeover fight in federal court:
The second assertion, that H.B. 1020 "dilute[s] the local govern ment's control," is similarly unfounded. Id. Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that Jackson's local governing authority has the exclusive power to appoint judges and prosecutors for the CCID court which, although "functional[ly] equivalent" to a municipal court, does not share "all features of municipal courts." Saunders v. State, 371 So. 3d 604, 616 (Miss. 2023).7 A mere political subdivision, Jackson is but "a subordinate unit of govern ment created by the State to carry out delegated governmental functions," with "no privileges or immunities under the federal constitution which it may invoke in opposition to the will of its creator." Ysura v. Pocatello Educ. Ass )n, 555 U.S. 353, 363 (2009) (cleaned up). The legislature decided against giving Jackson's local officials a new grant of power over the new court. That is the right and prerogative of the legislature, not of Jackson's voters. (KF: Is Judge Reeves paying attention? This is not the first time the Fifth Circuit has made such a statement. Earlier post.**)
The Court finally made short work of the NAACP's claim the CCID Court would benefit primarily white people. The opinion states such an argument only applies if the "government erects a barrier" that makes it harder for members of one group to obtain benefits available to members of another group. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs they failed to mention any such barrier.
No injury means no standing. No standing means no injunction.
Kingfish note: Don't be surprised if the NAACP asks for consideration by the entire Fifth Circuit.
* Derrick Johnson, Frank Figgers, Charles Taylor, Markyel Pittman, Charles Jones, and Naomi Lambright-Haynes
** "That Jackson “has been singled out by [S.B.] 2162” does not establish that a legally protected interest of the individual plaintiffs has been violated. Cities are creatures of states, and though their authority to do so is not un-limited, states may, under some circumstances, treat different cities differently. That the State of Mississippi has enacted a different method for the appointment of certain municipal airport commissioners and not others does not mean that plaintiffs, as residents and taxpayers of Jackson, have suffered a concrete and particularized, actual and imminent injury to interests protected by the Equal Protection Clause."
12 comments:
Once again the Feds have stepped on the race card and twisted their foot on it a few times for good measure. It is becoming extinct and people are tired of it. In the end, it will only be thrown by the unintelligent and will serve to label those people as fools.
So sad, now go find another race baiting cause to ply your grifting.
There seems to be (only seems) a slow and deliberate movement within this country to create an atmosphere of full equality specifically from the viewpoint of not using the analysis of race as a tool for said equality.
Equality also means all people should be held accountable for their actions. When the citizenry is incapable of producing the necessary leadership to accomplish this task, the state may intervene and insure that those in the voting minority will have their voices and desire for a safe existence acted upon with or without the majority's blessing.
Translation: The City of Jackson will be put on a leash if necessary.
Who will prosecute the charges?
The DA will drag his feet for sure.
The AG? Some lazy writ writers may be given new tasks in CCID.
And wait for the appeals to circuit court.
This is going to be sloppy
The victims believe they have been victimized yet again--
@7:50am - Yep, who cares what happens in the CCID court. Just appeal everything to Hinds County Court where it will languish and get dismissed for failure to timely prosecute like all the Beth Ann White DUIs.
Good opinion by the 5th circuit. Glad they put in "Unbeknownst to this court and (apparently) plaintiffs, the district court did issue an order on December 31, 2023, denying plaintiffs' motion". That was the right thing to do because Judge Wingate did what he was suppose to do and they needed to acknowledge that.
CCID will be a good addition.
Why would anyone hide a bomb in a building then tell the people a bomb is there? Seems sort of like a waste of time and energy hiding the bomb.
@11:28, I think you might be on the wrong topic. I’ve done it before. Just slack off the bourbon this early in the day.
To the NAACP who are you representing the Criminals? If so I surmise your energies should be spent on educating our youth to prevent them from seeing a courtroom unless it’s a class project!
I'm trying to keep up, with various threads about the same topic, as is typically the case.
Where are we with this thing? Did the District and its courts and judges survive or did they not? Thanks.
Obviously nobody knows, 11:28.
Post a Comment