Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et
al.,

Plaintiffs,
No. 3:23-cv-272-HTW-LGI
v.

TATE REEVES, in his official capacity as

Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.,

Defendants.

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The United States filed a motion to intervene in this action on July 12, 2023. That

motion is fully briefed. 1 Because its intervention motion remains pending, the United States

submits this Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs’ pending motion to preliminarily enjoin

Sections 4 and 5 of House Bill 1020, ECF No. 110, 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, which

authorizes the Attorney General “to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending

in a court of the United States.” The United States’ proposed Complaint in Intervention also

1
U.S. Proposed Compl. in Intervention, ECF No. 69-2; U.S. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 70; Defs.’
Br.’s in Opp’n, ECF Nos. 73 & 74; U.S. Reply, ECF No. 79.
2
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction re HB 1020 § 4
and § 5, ECF No. 110.
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 35

alleges that Sections 4 and 5 of House Bill 1020 violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution. 3

I. INTRODUCTION

Municipal courts throughout Mississippi are local bodies subject to local control. These

courts have jurisdiction over local municipal ordinances, city traffic violations, and misdemeanor

crimes. The judges overseeing these courts are typically appointed by the governing bodies for

each municipality. Under state law, in all cities with populations greater than 10,000, like the

City of Jackson, all municipal court judges and prosecutors are appointed by the municipality’s

elected officials, who in turn are accountable to the municipality’s voters. And the judges they

appoint must be electors from the county where the municipality is located. Taken together, this

structure, mandated by state law, reflects the distinctly local character and control of municipal

courts in Mississippi.

House Bill 1020 targets only the City of Jackson for taking away some of this local

control over its court system. It doubles the area of a previously created infrastructure

improvement district within Jackson (the Capitol Complex Improvement District, or CCID) and

creates a new court to serve concurrently with the Jackson Municipal Court within the CCID’s

boundaries. Unlike Jackson’s existing municipal court, however, and most other municipal

courts statewide, the State chose not to give appointment power over the CCID court to the

municipality’s elected officials. Instead, the power to appoint the CCID’s sole judge lies with

the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, who is elected from a district that does not

include Jackson, and the power to appoint the CCID’s two prosecuting attorneys with the

3
Should the Court grant the United States’ motion to intervene while Plaintiffs’ motion is
pending, it intends to file a motion for preliminary injunction specifying the relief sought.
-2-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 35

Mississippi Attorney General, who is elected statewide. Unlike every other municipality in

Mississippi, this targeted legislation substantially diminishes Jacksonians’ control over this

quintessentially local court system.

House Bill 1020’s disparate treatment of Jackson from the rest of the State violates the

Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, and a preliminary injunction preventing

appointment of the CCID judge and prosecuting attorneys by statewide officials is warranted.

House Bill 1020 violates the Equal Protection Clause in two ways. First, the factors articulated

in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252

(1977), demonstrate that House Bill 1020 was enacted with an impermissible discriminatory

purpose, subjecting the law to strict scrutiny which it cannot survive. These factors include the

State’s long history of resistance to Black self-governance paired with contemporaneous

statements and procedural and substantive departures during the bill’s enactment, as well as the

resulting disparate impact to the City of Jackson. Taken together, the mosaic of factors shows

that House Bill 1020 was motivated, at least in part, by race. Stripping local control from the

Black-majority City of Jackson is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government

interest and thus violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Second, the legislation places Jacksonians in a class different from all other

Mississippians with respect to their exercise of local control. It does so without a rational basis

tying the legislation’s chosen means to its intended ends. Creating a new court analogous to

Jackson’s existing municipal court but removing local control over appointment of the court’s

judge and prosecutors is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Because Plaintiffs are

likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, would be irreparably harmed without preliminary

-3-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 4 of 35

relief, and the balance of equities and public interest favor an injunction to maintain the status

quo, this Court should grant a preliminary injunction.

II. Factual Background

A. House Bill 1226 (2017)

In 2017, the Mississippi Legislature created the Capitol Complex Improvement District

(CCID). See H.B. No. 1226, 2017 Miss. Laws Ch. 444. The purpose of the district, comprised

of State-owned properties and facilities within the City of Jackson, was to “implement, supervise

and administer certain infrastructure improvement projects.” Id. The original March 2019

master plan for the CCID, prepared for the Mississippi Department of Finance and

Administration (DFA), included various construction, reconstruction, traffic, lighting, and utility

projects for that area. See Capitol Complex Improvement District Master Plan, Miss. Dep’t of

Fin. & Admin. (2019), https://perma.cc/JK8V-QGL8. Neither the enacting legislation nor the

2019 master plan evinced an intent that the CCID would or could become a distinct judicial or

prosecutorial district. 4

B. House Bill 1020 (2023)

Six years after it created the CCID, the legislature enacted House Bill 1020, Reg. Sess.,

2023 Miss. Laws. Ch. 546 (“HB 1020”), which is the focus of this litigation. It effectively

overrode the local control that voters and elected officials in Jackson and Hinds County had over

their local justice system, while leaving the same judicial and prosecutorial structures untouched

4
In 2021, the legislature enacted Chapter 403 (H.B. 974), which transferred authority over the
CCID from the DFA to the Mississippi Department of Public Safety (DPS). See H.B. 974 § 2,
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2021/pdf/HB/0900-0999/HB0974SG.pdf. H.B. 974
provided the Capitol Police with “jurisdiction relative to the enforcement of all laws of the State
of Mississippi on the properties” and the ability to “make arrests for any violation of any law of
the State of Mississippi which occurs within the boundaries of the district.” H.B. 974 designates
DPS as the “lead agency” for coordination and enforcement purposes within the CCID. Id.
-4-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 5 of 35

everywhere else in Mississippi. 5 It did so in two ways. First, on the county level, it attempted to

make Hinds County the only county in Mississippi where a portion of the non-emergency circuit

court judges, who are ordinarily elected by county residents, would be appointed by a statewide

official. See HB 1020 § 1; Saunders v. Mississippi, No. 2023-CA-00584-SCT, 2023 WL

6154416, at *11 (Miss. Sept. 21, 2023). The Mississippi Supreme Court invalidated the

provision on state constitutional grounds. See Saunders, 2023 WL 6154416, at *10-11 (Miss.

Sept. 21, 2023). Claims against that provision are now moot.

Second, HB 1020 made two coordinated changes to Jackson’s municipal court system.

First, it more than doubled the area of the existing CCID, expanding it beyond the original

boundaries that “were drawn to capture a majority of the State-owned properties and State of

Mississippi offices and facilities operating within [Jackson].” Capitol Complex Improvement

District Master Plan 2023 Update 1, Miss. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin. (Oct. 2023),

https://perma.cc/G8ST-R8WA (CCID Master Plan 2023 Update); HB 1020 § 8. The racial

implications of this expansion are stark—carving out a majority-White enclave from the

majority-Black City of Jackson. This is apparent, both statistically in terms of the demographic

characteristics and geographically in terms of which areas were selected as part of the expansion.

The map below presents the boundaries of the original CCID and those of the expanded

district laid over the 2020 Census data 6 for the City of Jackson. Brooks Decl., App. A, at ¶¶ 3-

5
A more complete description of the state judicial system, particularly municipal courts can be
found at https://www.msbar.org/media/2223/understanding-the-court-system-brochure.pdf.
6
The United States requests the Court take judicial notice of the census data cited herein
pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Courts have frequently recognized that “United
States census data is an appropriate and frequent subject of judicial notice.” Hollinger v. Home
State Mut. Ins. Co., 654 F.3d 564, 572-73 (5th Cir. 2011).
-5-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 6 of 35

10. As the map indicates, the district’s boundaries move mostly north and east grabbing

population concentrations that are overwhelmingly White in composition.

Id. at Att. C.

The census statistics support the visual impact of the map.

Total White NH (%) Black NH (%)

City of Jackson 153,701 25,424 (16.5) 122,131 (79.5)
CCID (HB 1226)(2017) 14,374 6,184 (43.0) 7,183 (50.0)
CCID (HB 1020)(2023) 26,457 12,698 (48.0) 12,038 (45.5)
Population added by HB 1020 12,083 6,514 (53.9) 4,855 (40.2)

Id. at ¶¶ 9, 10.

Even though White residents are 16.5% of the City’s total population, they are 53.9% of the

population added to the CCID. The White population percentage within the CCID rose from

43.0% under the 2017 boundaries to 48.0% under HB 1020. More significantly, as the data
-6-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 7 of 35

above indicate, 6,184 of the City’s total White population of 25,424 resided in the original

CCID, but under HB 1020, this number increased to 12,698, a jump from 24.3 to 49.9% of the

total number of White city residents.

HB 1020’s second change to Jackson’s municipal court system was the creation of a new

court functionally equivalent to a municipal justice system within this expanded CCID area. See

HB 1020 § 4. Mississippi law long predating HB 1020 established that every municipality in the

State with a population of at least 10,000 is to be served by a municipal court. Miss. Code Ann.

§§ 21-23-1—21-23-3 (1979). 7 These courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor crimes,

municipal ordinances, and city traffic violations. Id. § 21-31-7. There are currently 239

municipal courts. About the Courts, State of Miss. Judiciary, https://perma.cc/GJK6-Y5JA. 8

The number of municipal judges and prosecutors varies by the size of the relevant municipality,

but in all municipalities with a population of at least 10,000, Mississippi law provides that these

officials “shall be appointed by the governing authorities of the municipality at the time provided

for the appointment of other officers,” Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-3, and “shall be a qualified

elector of the county in which the municipality is located,” Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-3. The

Jackson Municipal Court currently has six municipal judges 9 who are appointed by the mayor of

Jackson and confirmed by a majority vote of the Jackson City Council. 10

7
Appointment of a municipal judge and prosecutor is discretionary in a municipality with a
population under 10,000. Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-5. However, “without a municipal judge, a
town cannot enforce its municipal ordinances.” Op. Atty. Gen. Hatcher, 1999 WL 1075209
(Miss. A.G. Sept. 24, 1999). See also About the Courts, State of Miss. Judiciary,
https://perma.cc/GJK6-Y5JA (most municipal judges of the State’s 239 municipal courts are
appointed by governing bodies of municipalities).
8
The Mississippi Bar Association, https://www.msbar.org/media/2223/understanding-the-court-
system-brochure.pdf, reports that there are 226 municipal courts.
9
Jackson Municipal Court, https://perma.cc/A9GQ-Z7A6.
10
Jackson, Miss., Code § 11-32 (1971); Ord. No. 1996-53(1), § 1, 9-24-95 (referencing Miss.
-7-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 8 of 35

Starting on January 1, 2024, however, HB 1020 creates a targeted exception to local

control over municipal courts in Mississippi. It creates a “CCID inferior court” within Jackson

overseen by a judge who has jurisdiction similar to that of Mississippi’s municipal courts, and

prosecuting attorneys empowered to practice in the CCID court in the same way as other district

attorneys throughout the state. HB 1020 §§ 4-5. In most substantive respects, the CCID court is

crafted to be similar to the already-existing Jackson Municipal Court. The CCID court judge is

empowered “to hear and determine all preliminary matters and criminal matters authorized by

law for municipal courts” and has “the same jurisdiction as municipal courts to hear and

determine all cases charging violations of the motor vehicle and traffic laws of this state, and

violations of the City of Jackson’s traffic ordinance or ordinances related to the disturbance of

the public peace,” provided such cases arise within the CCID. Id. § 4(1)(a); see also Miss. Code

Ann. § 21-23-7(1) (jurisdiction of municipal judge). The compensation for a CCID judge and

support staff is likewise tied to the compensation “paid to municipal court judges and their

support staff in the City of Jackson,” and the judge must “possess all qualifications required by

law for municipal court judges,” one notable exception being residency in the City of Jackson.

HB 1020 § 4(2)-(3). HB 1020 also creates two prosecuting attorney positions for the CCID

court, who are empowered to prosecute cases in that court “in the same manner and with the

same authority of law provided for district attorneys and county prosecuting attorneys by filing

an indictment or any other criminal action that accrues or occurs, in whole or in part, in the

CCID.” Id. § 5(1).

Code. § 21-23-3).
-8-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 9 of 35

But unlike all municipal court judges in the State, the CCID judge established by HB

1020 must be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, a state official,

instead of being appointed by local elected leaders in the municipality of Jackson, where the

court exercises jurisdiction. Id. § 4(2). In Mississippi, supreme court justices are elected from

three multi-member districts, with each electing three justices to the Court for staggered eight-

year terms. Miss. Code Ann. § 9-3-1 (districts); Miss. Const. art. 6, § 145B (number of justices);

Miss. Const. art. 6, § 149 (terms); see Supreme Court, State of Miss. Judiciary Admin. Office of

the Cts., https://perma.cc/2VGR-22AU; Mississippi Supreme Court Judicial Map, State of Miss.

Judiciary Admin. Office of the Cts., https://perma.cc/VE7R-CZV5. The longest-tenured Justice

serves as Chief. Miss. Code Ann. § 9-3-11. The current Chief Justice comes from District 2,

which does not include Hinds County. See Supreme Court Justices, State of Miss. Judiciary

Admin. Office of the Cts., https://perma.cc/BB9D-TD5L.

Like the CCID judge, the prosecuting attorneys in the CCID would be the only local

prosecutors appointed by a statewide official within a municipality where State law requires

municipal prosecuting attorneys to “be appointed by the governing authorities of the

municipality [].” Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-3. The two CCID prosecuting attorneys are to be

appointed by the Mississippi Attorney General. HB 1020 § 5(1). The current Mississippi

Attorney General, Lynn Fitch, was first elected in 2019 with 57.8% of the statewide general

election vote, 11 but in Jackson, 83.4% of the vote went to her general election opponent. 12 She

11
Mississippi Secretary of State, 2019 General Election Certified Results,
https://sos.ms.gov/elections/electionresults_aspx/elections_results_2019_certifiedG.aspx.
12
Past Election Results, Hinds County,
https://www.co.hinds.ms.us/pgs/apps/electionresults.asp?YearId=2019 (percentage excludes
write-in votes). In Hinds County, her opponent received 73.6% of the vote.
https://www.co.hinds.ms.us/pgs/elections/11052019Summary.txt.
-9-
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 10 of 35

was reelected on November 7, 2023, with 63.4% of the statewide vote, but her general election

opponent received 83.5% of the vote in Jackson. 13 Thus unlike in every other municipality

where municipal prosecutors are appointed by local leaders, the CCID prosecuting attorneys

would be appointed by an official who would not be the candidate of choice of the majority of

Jacksonians.

C. Background on Local Control in Mississippi

Mississippi has a long, undisputed history of state-led resistance to Black citizens

participating in the political process and exercising control over local governing institutions.

This resistance has played a prominent role in the City of Jackson and Hinds County, where

meaningful progress in Black political participation and the election of candidates of choice goes

back less than 50 years.

In Hinds County, a decade of federal court litigation, including constitutional and Voting

Rights Act challenges, eventually led to the drawing of county supervisor district lines that

included two districts in which Black voters could elect their preferred candidates. See

Kirksey v. Bd. of Supervisors, 468 F. Supp. 285, 303-05 (S.D. Miss. 1979).

State and local resistance to Black self-governance also delayed the advance of Black

political participation in Jackson at the municipal level. In 1962, the Mississippi legislature

passed a bill that required all cities and towns organized under the state municipal code to adopt

at-large elections for aldermen. See Frank Parker, Black Votes Count: Political Empowerment

13
Unofficial Precinct Report, Hinds County,
https://www.co.hinds.ms.us/pgs/results/ElectionNightResults.asp (percentage excludes write-in
votes). In Hinds County, her opponent received 73.6% of the vote.
https://www.co.hinds.ms.us/pgs/results/Unofficial%20Election%20Results.pdf.
- 10 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 11 of 35

in Mississippi after 1965 53 (1990); see also Stewart v. Waller, 404 F. Supp. 206, 213–14 (N.D.

Miss. 1975).

State resistance to Black political participation played a crucial role in suppressing Black-

preferred candidates’ election to the judiciary long after progress had been made in other areas of

state and local government. In 1986, the Attorney General imposed an objection under Section 5

of the Voting Rights Act to the conversion of 24 single-member judicial districts to multi-

member districts with anti-single-shot voting requirements. 14

A year later, this Court found the use of multi-member districts for the election of judges

in numerous state courts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Martin v. Allain, 658 F.

Supp. 1183, 1204 (S.D. Miss. 1987). The decision led to the realignment of the Seventh Circuit

Court District to be coterminous with Hinds County and divided it into four, single-member

judicial subdistricts. See Martin v. Mabus, 700 F. Supp. 327, 341-42 (S.D. Miss. 1988)

(remedial phase); Hinds County, Mississippi, Facts about Mississippi’s Seventh Circuit Court

District and its Jurisdiction,

https://www.hindscountyms.com/sites/default/files/SEVENTH_CIRCUIT_COURT_DISTRICT

OF STATE OF MISSISSIPPI JURISDICTION.pdf. Under these lines, Black voters began

having success electing their preferred candidates. By 1998, two of the Seventh District’s four

single-member subdistricts had repeatedly elected Black judges. Voting Rights Act: Evidence of

Continued Need: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Const. of the Comm. on the Judiciary,

109th Cong. 5566-71 (2006). In 2018, Black candidates succeeded in being elected to all four

judicial subdistricts in the Seventh Circuit. Jimmie E. Gates, Hinds County judicial runoffs

14
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/05/30/MS-1970.pdf.
- 11 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 12 of 35

shake up Circuit Court makeup, Clarion Ledger (Nov. 27, 2018, 10:51 PM),

https://perma.cc/FKN2-YGQS.

Since the Seventh Circuit court’s realignment, the state has increased the overall number

of circuit judges statewide by approximately 20 percent, though it has declined to add any

elected judgeships to the Seventh Circuit itself. Instead, the seventh circuit’s heavy caseload has

been addressed on an ad hoc basis by a series of temporary appointments by the Chief Justice of

the Mississippi Supreme Court. Between 2004 and 2022, the Chief Justice appointed at least

fourteen special circuit court judges in Hinds County. 15

At the same time, politicians have increasingly criticized Black-led cities such as

Jackson, accusing city leaders of mismanagement, corruption, and an inability to address crime.

In 2003, gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour, without consulting city officials, pledged to

unveil a “crime plan” for Jackson. Sid Salter, The Changing Face of Jackson, The Clarion-

Ledger, November 16, 2003, at 2G (reporting that Jackson city leaders asked Barbour why

Jackson had a specific “crime plan” but other municipalities in the state did not); Patrice Sawyer,

15
See Supreme Court appoints two special judges for Hinds County Circuit Court, State of Miss.
Judiciary Admin. Off. of Cts. (May 24, 2006),
https://courts.ms.gov/news/2006/052405HindsSpecialJudges.php; Supreme Court appoints
special judge for Hinds County Circuit Court, State of Miss. Judiciary Admin. Off. of Cts. (Aug.
29, 2007), https://courts.ms.gov/news/2007/82907Hindsspecialjudge.php; Supreme Court
appoints special judge for Hinds County Circuit Court, State of Miss. Judiciary Admin. Off. of
Cts. (Oct. 9, 2008), https://courts.ms.gov/news/2008/100808teeuwissen_specialjudge.php;
Supreme Court appoints Special Judge for Hinds County, State of Miss. Judiciary Admin. Off. of
Cts. (Dec. 30, 2010), https://courts.ms.gov/news/2010/12.30.10Hinds Special Judge.php; Four
special judges appointed to assist Hinds Circuit Court, State of Miss. Judiciary Admin. Off. of
Cts. (Aug. 4, 2020),
https://courts.ms.gov/news/2020/08.04.20%20Hinds%20Circuit%20appointment.php;
Four special judges appointed to assist Hinds Circuit Courts, State of Miss. Judiciary Admin.
Off. of Cts. (Sept. 22, 2022),
https://courts.ms.gov/news/2022/09.22.22%20Hinds%20Circuit%20special%20judges%20appoi
nted.php.
- 12 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 13 of 35

Election 2003, The Clarion-Ledger, October 5, 2003, at 1A (reporting that Jackson’s mayor was

“not familiar with Barbour’s crime plan” and that the Hinds County Sheriff was “not privy to any

parts of the plan”). At the end of his term, Barbour’s successor, Phil Bryant suggested that

unilateral executive action might be necessary if local leadership in Jackson proved

uncooperative. Justin Vicory, Lumumba, Phil Bryant trade jabs over weekend homicides at

church, Walmart, Clarion Ledger (Jan. 14, 2019, 5:14 PM), https://perma.cc/228N-PAND.

Discussing Jackson’s crime problems in 2021, Governor Tate Reeves claimed, “Many of

these murders and homicides … are being committed by individuals who appear to have been

arrested recently and let out on bail,” implying that judges in Jackson were contributing to the

crime problem by failing to ensure that violent criminals remained incarcerated pending trial.

Justin Vicory, Jackson mayor says state supplying additional police to help to fight crime not

enough, Clarion Ledger (July 15, 2021, 1:09 PM), https://perma.cc/K7K9-MEJ6. In 2023,

during a press conference where he promoted HB 1020, Governor Reeves justified state

intervention in local courts and law enforcement on the grounds that Jackson was the “murder

capital of the world.” Ross Reily, Gov. Tate Reeves calls Jackson the ‘murder capital of the

world’, Clarion Ledger (Feb. 16, 2023, 3:28 PM), https://perma.cc/Z76H-5T7X.

Amidst growing criticism of Jackson’s crime problems, state leaders withheld requested

resources for Jackson’s and Hinds County’s criminal justice systems. For example, in a

legislative session that allocated $3 million to the Capitol Police, the Mississippi legislature

declined to fund youth mental health programs, detention center improvements, and Jackson

Police Department initiatives. See H.B. 865, H.B. 1227, H.B. 1384, H.B. 1679, H.B. 943, H.B.

1519, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2023). Members of the local delegation introduced over

thirty bills—see, e.g., H.B. 1131 (2022) (add ADAs and criminal investigators in the Seventh

- 13 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 14 of 35

Circuit); H.B. 988 (2002) (add Seventh Circuit judges) 16—seeking to improve the Hinds County

criminal justice system with increases in judges, ADAs, and criminal investigators between 2006

and 2022. The legislature rejected all. See also Section I.A.2.c., infra.

LEGAL STANDARD

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a movant must show “(1) a substantial likelihood of

success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued,

(3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the

injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.”

Jones v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., 880 F.3d 756, 759 (5th Cir. 2018). Whether to grant a

preliminary injunction “lies within the discretion of the district court.” Apple Barrel Prods., Inc.

v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1984).

ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits of Their Claim that HB 1020
Violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the culmination of factors analyzed

under an Arlington Heights framework demonstrate that HB 1020 was motivated, at least in part,

by race. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252

(1977). As such, HB 1020 is subject to strict scrutiny which it cannot pass because the law’s

16
These bills, introduced by local delegation leaders, Senator John Horhn, and Representatives
Earle Banks, Christopher Bell, and Edward Blackmon, Jr., to address the local criminal justice
system infrastructure, are available at http://www.legislature.ms.gov/legislation/previous-
sessions, and included (all in their respective regular legislative sessions): H.B. 1288 (2006);
H.B. 1357 (2006); H.B. 1505 (2007); H.B. 1515 (2007); H.B. 992 (2008); H.B. 1202 (2008);
H.B. 1204 (2008); H.B. 1080 (2009); H.B. 991 (2010); H.B. 1166 (2010); H.B. 1254 (2011);
H.B. 1480 (2012); H.B. 665 (2013); H.B. 1093 (2014); H.B. 1230 (2015); H.B. 628 (2016); H.B.
642 (2016); H.B. 678 (2016); H.B. 775 (2017); H.B. 779 (2017); H.B. 780 (2017); H.B. 603
(2018); H.B. 624 (2018); H.B. 664 (2018); H.B. 412 (2019); H.B. 470 (2019); H.B. 555 (2019);
H.B. 389 (2020); S.B. 2778 (2020); H.B. 393 (2021); S.B. 2634 (2021).
- 14 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 15 of 35

targeting of the majority-Black City of Jackson for loss of local control is not narrowly tailored

to achieve a compelling state interest. In the alternative, HB 1020 also fails rational basis review

as it is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Under either test, Plaintiffs have a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

A. HB 1020 Unconstitutionally Discriminates on the Basis of Race in Violation of the

Equal Protection Clause.

Applying the well-established factors set forth in Arlington Heights reveals HB 1020 was

passed with an impermissible discriminatory purpose.

1. The Fourteenth Amendment Forbids Legislation Enacted with a

Discriminatory Purpose.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids any state to “deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

“The central purpose of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is the

prevention of official conduct discriminating on the basis of race.” Washington v. Davis, 426

U.S. 229, 239 (1976). “Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a

violation of the Equal Protection Clause.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265. But “[t]his is not

to say that the necessary discriminatory racial purpose must be express or appear on the face of

the statute . . . .” Washington, 426 U.S. at 241. “Necessarily, an invidious discriminatory

purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts, including the fact, if true,

that the law bears more heavily on one race than another.” Id. at 242. The ultimate inquiry is

whether legislation was enacted at least in part “because of,” and not “in spite of,” a law’s

“adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S.

256, 279 (1979). Although the law recognizes that “legislators and administrators are properly

concerned with balancing numerous competing considerations . . . racial discrimination is not

just another competing consideration. When there is proof that a discriminatory purpose has
- 15 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 16 of 35

been a motivating factor in the decision, this judicial deference is no longer justified.” Arlington

Heights, 429 U.S. at 265-66. This belongs to the “unremarkable principle that the State may not

alter the procedures of government to target racial minorities.” Schuette v. Coal. to Defend

Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291, 304 (2014) (plurality op.). Accordingly, the Fourteenth

Amendment forbids government action where “invidious discrimination would be the necessary

result of the procedural restructuring” of governmental authority. Id. (citing Hunter v. Erickson,

393 U.S. 385, 390-91 (1969)).

Whether provisions that are “facially neutral but have racially disproportionate effects”

violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is evaluated under the standard

articulated in Arlington Heights. Harness v. Watson, 47 F.4th 296, 303 (5th Cir. 2022) (en

banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2426 (2023); see also Veasey v. Abbott, 830 F.3d 216, 230 (5th

Cir. 2016) (en banc). Arlington Heights contemplates two ways a plaintiff can prove such

ostensibly neutral laws were enacted with a discriminatory purpose. First, “sometimes a clear

pattern, unexplainable on grounds other than race, emerges from the effect of the state action

even when the governing legislation appears neutral on its face.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at

266. Aspects of HB 1020 display such a pattern. However, the Supreme Court also recognized

such “stark” cases are “rare,” and where “impact alone is not determinative,” id., “Arlington

Heights adopted a two-stage process,” Harness, 47 F.4th at 304. Thus, a plaintiff may also prove

discrimination under a burden-shifting framework. To do so, they must “prove by an evidentiary

preponderance that racial discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in enacting the

challenged provision.” Id. (citing Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 227-28 (1985)). If this

showing is successful, “the burden shifts to the state to demonstrate that the provision would

have been enacted without an impermissible purpose.” Id. (quoting Underwood, 471 U.S. at

- 16 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 17 of 35

228). Under either a “clear pattern” or discriminatory intent theory, “[i]f the government is

found to have acted with a discriminatory purpose, strict scrutiny review places the burden on the

government to prove that its actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government

interest.” Lewis v. Ascension Par. Sch. Bd., 662 F.3d 343, 348 (5th Cir. 2011).

When evaluating discriminatory intent, the Arlington Heights framework requires a

“sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.”

Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266. A discriminatory intent claim “need not be proved by direct

evidence.” Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 618 (1982). Rather, “courts may consider both

circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” Veasey, 830 F.3d at 235

(citing Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266). The “true purpose” behind a challenged scheme

may be “cleverly cloaked in the guise of propriety,” and “[t]he existence of a right to redress

does not turn on the degree of subtlety with which a discriminatory plan is effectuated.” Lodge

v. Buxton, 639 F.2d 1358, 1363 (5th Cir. 1981), aff’d sub nom. Rogers, 458 U.S. 613 (1982); see

also Veasey, 830 F.3d at 235-36 (“[W]e rarely have legislators announcing an intent to

discriminate based on race.”).

In Arlington Heights, the Supreme Court established a non-exclusive list of evidentiary

factors to evaluate legislative intent. This analysis begins assessing with whether “[t]he impact

of the official action [] bears more heavily on one race than another,” which “may provide an

important starting point.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266 (citation and internal quotation

marks omitted). Where a law “continues to have a disparate racial impact,” factors pertinent to

determine discriminatory intent include “(1) the historical background of the decision, (2) the

specific sequence of events leading up to the decision, (3) departures from the normal procedural

sequence, (4) substantive departures, and (5) legislative history, especially where there are

- 17 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 18 of 35

contemporary statements by members of the decision-making body.” Overton v. City of Austin,

871 F.2d 529, 540 (5th Cir. 1989) (citing Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 267–68); see also

Harness, 47 F.4th at 308 (“Under Arlington Heights, the indicia to evaluate lawmakers’

discriminatory purpose are found in circumstantial evidence such as legislative history,

legislators’ public comments, a ‘clear pattern’ of otherwise inexplicable racial impacts, and a

‘series’ of invidious actions.”); Veasey, 830 F.3d at 231. A plaintiff need not prove

discrimination was the sole or primary purpose of legislation to demonstrate its invalidity.

Instead, “racial discrimination need only be one purpose, and not even a primary purpose, of an

official action for a violation to occur.” Veasey, 830 F.3d at 230 (quoting United States v.

Brown, 561 F.3d 420, 433 (5th Cir. 2009)) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

2. The Arlington Heights Factors Demonstrate that HB 1020 Has a

Discriminatory Purpose Forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment.

a. HB 1020 Has a Substantial Discriminatory Impact.

The “starting point” of the Arlington Heights analysis is “whether the challenged action

bears more heavily on one race than another.” Rollerson v. Brazos River Harbor Navigation

Dist. of Brazoria Cnty. Texas, 6 F.4th 633, 639 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Arlington Heights, 429

U.S. at 266) (internal quotation marks omitted). Census data establish that HB 1020’s targeting

of the majority-Black City of Jackson and Hinds County 17 has a substantial disparate impact.

The impact of HB 1020’s expanded borders for the CCID further gives rise to an

inference of discriminatory intent. In fact, the revision of the CCID boundaries is so “stark” as

17
Although Section 1 of HB 1020, which established four additional circuit judges for Hinds
County to be appointed by the Chief Justice and not elected as the Mississippi Constitution
requires, was invalidated on state-law grounds, see Saunders, 2023 WL 6154416, at *11, the
inclusion of this provision in the original text of HB 1020 and the foreseeable effects it would
have remain evidence of the discriminatory intent of the legislation.
- 18 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 19 of 35

to give rise to an inference that this is one of those “rare” cases where “a clear pattern,

unexplainable on grounds other than race, emerges from the effect of the state action even when

the governing legislation appears neutral on its face.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 266.

The boundaries of the expanded district surgically capture the predominantly White areas

of Jackson such that an intent to do so becomes all but self-evident. Moreover, the State has

proffered no rationale for how it chose to include or exclude areas for the expanded CCID, 18 and

the new areas do not advance the CCID’s original goal of capturing predominantly state-owned

land within Jackson. The CCID’s primary expansion northward captured almost exclusively

predominantly White areas but stopped before reaching predominantly Black areas of Jackson.

Its western border, which already abutted or began to capture majority-Black areas, remained

mostly unchanged in the expansion. In short, HB 1020’s selective expansion of the CCID

creates a new White-majority enclave within the Black-majority City of Jackson, demonstrating

the legislature’s intent to carve out a subset of the populace along racial lines. It creates a new

majority-White enclave no longer under the local control of the majority-Black City of Jackson.

That HB 1020 cuts a boundary so brazenly between where majority-White and Black residents

reside presents clear evidence that race was a factor in this legislation. Even if the Court

concludes this pattern is not enough to give rise to an inference of impermissible intent on its

own, it certainly weighs heavily when evaluating the totality of the circumstances for evidence of

18
Despite testimony during legislative hearings about the need to revise the CCID’s borders, the
State provided no rationale for why specific geographies were included while others were
excluded. See, e.g., Capitol Police Chief Bo Lucky, Judiciary B – Room 113, 10 October 2022;
9:00 AM, House Judiciary B Committee, Oct. 10, 2022, YouTube at 1:13:00,
https://youtu.be/qc6fTrAwW4E?t=4394 (calling existing lines irregular and muddled); Rep. Trey
Lamar, MS House Floor - 7 February 2023; 10:00 AM; YouTube at 8:30:11,
https://youtu.be/HtruSFI0avs?t=30611 (indicating the changes came at the request of law
enforcement).
- 19 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 20 of 35

intent. See, e.g., Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 647 (1993) (“reapportionment is one area in which

appearances do matter,” and “[i]n some exceptional cases, a reapportionment plan may be so

highly irregular that, on its face, it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an

effort to segregate voters on the basis of race.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

b. Historical Background of the Decision

Since emancipation, Black Mississippians have faced a gauntlet of measures by state and

local leaders to undermine their political power, ranging from violent attacks to facially neutral

laws designed to dilute Black voting strength. See Section I.C., supra. Hinds County and

Jackson, both centers of Black political power in the state, have repeatedly borne the brunt of

such resistance. HB 1020 continues the long history in Mississippi of state resistance to Black

Mississippians exercising increasing levels of control over their elected and locally appointed

representatives. By creating a functionally equivalent municipal court in Jackson with a state-

appointed judge and state appointed prosecutors, HB 1020 deprives elected city officials of the

ability to appoint a judge and prosecutors accountable to the people they serve. Just like many

past efforts to undermine Black political power, HB 1020 singles out the majority-Black City of

Jackson for loss of local control of its judicial system and ability to self-govern and enforce its

own municipal laws.

c. Substantive Departures

Implementing HB 1020 will result in numerous substantive departures that further give

rise to an inference of discriminatory intent. The provision for creating appointed circuit

judgeships was contrary to the express guarantees of the Mississippi Constitution. See Saunders,

2023 WL 6154416, at *11. The appointment of CCID officials with the powers of municipal

- 20 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 21 of 35

judges and prosecutors by statewide rather than municipal officials departs from the procedures

used everywhere else in Mississippi. See Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-3.

Creating a new court system as a response to concerns over public safety is a significant

departure from other solutions typically employed—namely funding, staffing, and improving

existing systems. 19 And moreover a significant departure from what the City of Jackson and its

law enforcement officers specifically requested—again, funding, staffing, and improving

existing systems—which members of the legislature themselves acknowledged were priorities. 20

d. Procedural Departures & Legislative History

During the adoption of HB 1020, its proponents departed procedurally from standard

legislative processes, further evincing discriminatory intent under Arlington Heights. 429 U.S. at

267. Although, pursuant to the Mississippi Constitution and House Rules the normal, if not

19
The Mississippi Office of Forensics Laboratories, for example, has approximately “15,000
backlogged cases for analysis” that “may continue to increase without preventative and
corrective measures,” and that office’s “ability to continue operations and provide quality
services [] depends on availability of funding . . . needed to . . . recruit new talent, maintain
current talent, continue scientist training, and replace equipment.” Mississippi Department of
Public Safety Strategic Plan 2024-2028 at 10, https://perma.cc/PL3Y-Y7U4.
20
See, e.g., Judiciary B - Room 113, 10 October 2022; 9:00 AM, YouTube at 3:05:49,
https://youtu.be/qc6fTrAwW4E?t=11149 (more money needed and was requested to address
backlog); Judiciary B - Room 113, 21 November 2022; 9:00 AM, YouTube at 4:27 – 1:00:48,
https://youtu.be/mrBKZY8Be Y?t=267 (Jackson Mayor, police chief, and others asking for
more money to: address backlog; improve crime lab with ballistic technology; secure a new
holding facility and command center; hire new officers; install more cameras; fund JPD; add
more municipal court judges, prosecutors, and public defenders; repairs; and additional staffing);
Hinds County District Attorney Jody Owens, Judiciary B – Room 113, 10 October 2022; 9:00
AM, YouTube at 1:19:30, https://youtu.be/qc6fTrAwW4E?t=4770 (temporary funding in July
2022 allowing office to hire six extra ADAs “for a limited period of time” was a “game
changer”); Sen. Brice Wiggins, Judiciary A - Room 216, 23 February 2023; 3:00 P.M., YouTube
at 26:42, https://youtu.be/vj6QKjsksB8?t=1602 (spoke with DA Owens; data indicate that
assistance from State to address caseloads, criminal in particular, is working); but see MS Senate
Floor - 7 March 2023; 10:00 AM, YouTube at 2:20:32, https://youtu.be/4J 8j RMMJY?t=8430
(no effort to look into adding funds to synchronize 9-1-1 system in Jackson).
- 21 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 22 of 35

required, destinations for a bill affecting only a local judiciary is the House standing committee

on Local and Private Legislation and the House Judiciary committee, Bill sponsor Representative

Lamar directed the bill to the committee he chaired: the House Ways and Means Committee. 21

Rep. Lamar weaved this unusual path for the bill by pre-loading it with 1,000 extraneous pages

that he later removed with his own amendment. 22 In essence, he constructed the bill to allow

him to navigate it through a legislative process tailored to avoid scrutiny by the committees

normally designated to review such judicial legislation. Rep. Lamar’s departure from normal

procedure is even more suspect because nothing under House Rule 49 prevented this local bill

from being heard in more than one committee.

Black legislators were excluded from normal legislative procedures, and their criticisms

were all but ignored. The only Black member of the conference committee, and the only

member of that committee from Jackson, was Representative Earle Banks of Hinds County.

Rep. Banks was excluded from conference committee meetings in which revised versions of HB

1020 were prepared and is reported to have indicated that the committee never met with him on

HB 1020. 23 Finally, he received the final committee report for review only moments prior to the

21
Miss. Const. art. IV, § 89. (“No local or private bill shall be passed by either House until it
shall have been referred to” the “standing committee on local and private legislation”);
Mississippi House Rule 48 requires that “Bills . . . addressed to the House shall, upon
introduction, be referred by the Speaker to the committee having jurisdiction over the subject
matter, and shall be considered by the House only after having been reported by such
committee.” Rules of the House of Representatives, http://www.legislature.ms.gov/general-
information.
22
Rep. Trey Lamar, MS House Floor - 7 February 2023; 10:00 AM; YouTube at 6:22:41,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtruSFI0avs&t=22960s.
23
Courtney Ann Jackson, House Bill 1020 conference report filed but recommitted for more
work, WLBT, (Mar. 28, 2023, 9:07 PM), https://perma.cc/F6LM-GJGV.
- 22 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 23 of 35

final committee meeting, and ultimately did not sign the final conference committee report on

HB 1020, the only committee member not to do so. 24

Despite the proffered purpose of HB 1020 to address the criminal docket backlog,

Senator Wiggins, who spoke extensively on the Senate floor in favor of the bill, never spoke with

the elected Hinds County circuit court judges, the very judges tasked with handling that docket.

In fact, he did not even know if anyone else in the Senate had done so. 25 Bill sponsor Rep.

Lamar was questioned repeatedly throughout legislative debates about why he had not reached

out to local officials before introducing HB 1020. Rep. Christopher Bell, who is Black, asked

why the Hinds County delegation was not consulted. Rep. Lamar responded that he would not

“name names,” but that he spoke to “several people who reside inside Hinds County.” 26 Rep.

Bell replied pointedly, “Do they look like me?” Amid laughter from the chamber, and his own

nervous laughter, Rep. Lamar deflected: “All God’s children are unique. . . . We all are God’s

children.” 27 Throughout the legislative session Rep. Lamar continued to evade similar questions

24
Michael Wines, Revised plan for justice system in Mississippi capital leaves same bitter
divide, The New York Times (April 10, 2023), www.nytimes.com/2023/04/10/us/jackson-
mississippi-crime-police.html (reporting that Rep. Banks said that he was excluded from
committee meetings where the final versions of the bills were prepared, and that he was not
provided with proposed changes until minutes before the vote was to be held; refusing to sign the
conference report, Rep. Banks is reported to have said, “They decided what they were going to
do, and I was one vote out of six. . . . They really did not need me.”); Conference Report # 2,
House Bill 1020, http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2023/pdf/cr/HB1020CR 2.pdf (no
signature from Rep. Banks).
25
Sen. Brice Wiggins, MS Senate Floor – 7 March 2023; 10:00 AM; YouTube at 2:15:40 (Mar.
7, 2023), https://youtu.be/4J_8j_RMMJY?t=8140.
26
Rep. Christopher Bell and Rep. Trey Lamar, MS House Floor - 7 February 2023; 10:00 AM;
YouTube at 8:02:46 (Feb. 7, 2023), https://youtu.be/HtruSFI0avs?t=28966.
27
Id. at 8:03:12, https://youtu.be/HtruSFI0avs?t=28995s.
- 23 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 24 of 35

about whether bill sponsors reached out to the Jackson legislative delegation and other Black

local leadership regarding HB 1020’s changes. 28

During the legislative process, lawmakers also launched criticisms of Jackson’s

predominately Black local officials and residents. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 268. An early

version of HB 1020 required the state Department of Public Safety and the City of Jackson to

enter a Memorandum of Understanding “detailing the expectations of both parties,” and if that

memorandum was not executed, the law provided that “any dispute related to the law

enforcement functions of the Office of Capitol Police within the boundaries of the City of

Jackson, Mississippi, shall be resolved in favor of the Commissioner of the Department of Public

Safety.” 29 During a committee meeting on HB 1020 in response to a question asking why

disputes would automatically be in the favor of the Capitol Police, particularly if it were the State

refusing execute the memorandum, Senator Wiggins, a proponent of HB 1020 and chair of the

Senate Committee on the Judiciary A, turned to criticism of Jackson’s mayor, saying that “in the

law enforcement space, if you go back and you look at where things happen, at certain points

there tends to be a question of who’s in charge . . . somebody needed to be in charge, because

you have problems when that doesn’t happen. It is well-documented in the media and it’s well-

documented in the court system that there’s been issues with the City of Jackson and particularly

28
Id. at 8:42:33, https://youtu.be/HtruSFI0avs?t=31351 (responding to Rep. Ronnie Crudup’s
question whether “it would have been proper to get with the Jackson delegation and bring us to a
room and see what’s the best way to handle this,” Rep. Lamar said, “If you’re asking if I’ve
spoken with people of Hinds County, and Jackson [], the CCID, then the answer is yes, I have,”
but the allegation that the “whole Jackson delegation . . . and I say ‘delegation’ I don’t mean just
limited to people in this room are against the bill [is] not factual, either, because I’ve heard from
many people that are associated with Jackson, Jackson leadership, and just citizens of Jackson
that are in favor of this.”).
29
Committee Amendment No. 1, House Bill 1020,
http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2023/pdf/sam/HB1020_S_Cmte_Amend_01.pdf.
- 24 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 25 of 35

the Mayor entering into contracts, and so that language [in the bill] is to provide for the safety of

the citizens of Jackson so that they are no longer caught . . . between disputes between the City

of Jackson and I would say the mayor and Capitol Police.” 30 As another example, bill sponsor

Rep. Lamar suggested among other things during the House floor debate that the “best and

brightest” judges were not to be found in Hinds County. 31

e. Totality of the Circumstances & Lack of Nondiscriminatory

Explanation

In addition to the foregoing evidence, Arlington Heights makes clear that its list of

relevant factors is not exhaustive. See 429 U.S. at 268. Here, such additional factors would

include an automatic sunset provision such that no official other than the current Chief Justice,

who is not a resident of Hinds County, would appoint a CCID judge. Similarly, because the

current Attorney General’s next term also runs past the expiration of the CCID court provisions,

she will be the only individual to appoint CCID prosecuting attorneys. Moreover, she will be

able to appoint municipal-equivalent prosecutors in a jurisdiction where she was disfavored four-

to-one by voters in the municipality. See HB 1020 §§ 4(5) & 5(2) (“This section shall stand

repealed on July 1, 2027.”).

The totality of the circumstances demonstrate that race was a substantial or motivating

factor in enacting HB 1020. This thus turns the burden to the State to demonstrate that HB 1020

would have been enacted without an impermissible purpose. Harness, 47 F.4th at 304 (“Hunter

step two”). The State cannot satisfy this burden. There is no nondiscriminatory explanation for

straying from the State’s normal procedures that circuit court judges are elected by voters in their

30
Sen. Brice Wiggins, Judiciary A - Room 216, 23 Feb 2023; 3:00 P.M.; YouTube at 56:56
(Feb. 23, 2023), https://youtu.be/vj6QKjsksB8?t=3395.
31
Rep. Trey Lamar, MS House Floor – 7 February 2023; 10:00 AM; YouTube at 6:46:47 (Feb.
7, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/live/HtruSFI0avs?feature=share&t=24394.
- 25 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 26 of 35

district, and municipal-equivalent judges and prosecutors are appointed by local officials. As

explained above, the rationale of addressing crime may explain the creation of additional judicial

or prosecutorial resources, but not the decision to sidestep the otherwise standard statewide

practice that these officials are elected or appointed by individuals in the jurisdictions they serve

and must be from the jurisdictions they serve. See supra, Part I.A.2. Defendants thus cannot

show that the law would have passed absent a discriminatory purpose.

Taken as a whole, the Arlington Heights factors lead to an inference that HB 1020 was

enacted with a discriminatory purpose, motivated at least in part by race. As such, HB 1020 is

subject to strict scrutiny.

3. HB 1020 Fails Strict Scrutiny.

To satisfy strict scrutiny, the State bears the burden to prove that HB 1020 is “narrowly

tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.” Lewis, 662 F.3d at 348. Stripping local

control over the local court system in the largest majority-Black municipality in the State is not

narrowly tailored to any proffered government interest.

Even assuming for purposes of this Statement of Interest that Defendants have articulated

a compelling interest, 32 HB 1020’s CCID court provisions are not narrowly tailored to achieve

that interest. HB 1020’s CCID court provisions make no substantive change, either subtraction

or addition, to the powers of the CCID court compared with the existing municipal courts to

detect, prosecute, or punish crime. See HB 1020 §§ 4(1), 5(1). Instead, it creates a duplicative

court that will likely be plagued by the same infrastructure and resource deficiencies impacting

32
Although the bill’s proponents have generally cited crime rates in Jackson as a rationale for the
legislation, the United States is not aware of any evidence put forth regarding crime rates within
the expanded CCID as compared with the rest of Jackson.
- 26 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 27 of 35

existing municipal courts, such as the lack of a holding facility where individuals who are

arrested can be booked, the lack of modern technology, and the lack of attorney and other staff

resources needed to process evidence and prepare cases to be tried. See, e.g., examples cited in

Section I.A.2.c., supra. Moreover, to the extent the CCID court provides an additional resource,

it did not require removing local control. Such a usurpation is not narrowly tailored to a

compelling interest as the Equal Protection Clause demands. Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to

succeed on the merits.

B. In the Alternative, HB 1020 Impermissibly Discriminates Against Jacksonians in

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Where a law differentiates between classes of persons not based on an inherently suspect

characteristic, the Equal Protection Clause requires that the classification rationally further a

legitimate state interest. Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992). Indeed, “most laws

differentiate in some fashion between classes of persons,” and “[t]he Equal Protection Clause

does not forbid classification. It simply keeps governmental decisionmakers from treating

differently persons who are in all relevant respects alike.” Id. (citing F.S. Royster Guano Co. v.

Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920)). However, “the classification must be reasonable, not

arbitrary and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to

the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.”

F.S. Royster Guano Co., 253 U.S. at 415; see also Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 111 (1966)

(“Equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, but it does require

that a distinction made have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is

made.”).

In addition to being racially motivated, as described above, HB 1020 singles out only the

people of the City of Jackson for loss of control over their judicial system. No other residents of

- 27 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 28 of 35

any other municipality are targeted in this way. This discrimination against those residing only

in the City of Jackson creates a functional classification between Jacksonians and other

Mississippians and therefore it must “rationally further a legitimate state interest.” Nordlinger,

505 U.S. at 10. This requires “a plausible policy reason for the classification” and that “the

legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based rationally may have been

considered to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.” Id. at 11. Importantly here, it also

requires a rational connection between the State’s purported ends and the means used to achieve

it; “The State may not rely on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so

attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.” City of Cleburne v. Cleburne

Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 446 (1985). Accordingly, Mississippi’s reallocation of appointment

power away from local elected officials to statewide officeholders in Jackson alone, while

retaining local control in all other Mississippi municipalities, “cannot survive constitutional

scrutiny unless there is a rational basis for distinguishing between [Jacksonians] and [residents]

in every other [Mississippi] municipality.” City of Greensboro v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of

Elections, 120 F. Supp. 3d 479, 487 (M.D.N.C. 2015).

The classification HB 1020 draws between Jacksonians and all other municipal residents

in Mississippi, depriving the former of local control over the municipal judge system by having

the Chief Justice and Attorney General appoint the CCID court officials in Jackson while

maintaining local control everywhere else, is “so attenuated” from any legitimate rationale “as to

render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.” City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446.

HB 1020 singles out Jackson residents from their counterparts everywhere else in

Mississippi. The CCID court and its officials are in all but name a municipal court, judge, and

prosecutors. The statutory definitions of the CCID judge’s substantive jurisdiction as well as the

- 28 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 29 of 35

powers and duties of the CCID judge and prosecuting attorneys are explicitly delineated to match

those of municipal judges and prosecutors. 33 If the law’s new titles for existing roles are put

aside, it becomes clear HB 1020 simply added a municipal judge and prosecutors to Jackson,

only with a more limited geographic jurisdiction than their preexisting counterparts.

Except for the CCID subdistrict of Jackson, which appears to function as a “city within

the city” 34 with a population of almost 26,500, in every municipality in the state with a

population over 10,000, such judges and prosecutors are “appointed by the governing authorities

of the municipality at the time provided for the appointment of other officers.” Miss. Code Ann.

§ 21-23-3. HB 1020’s automatic repeal provisions in advance of the next election for the sitting

Chief Justice’s seat and for the Attorney General ensures that, absent early departure from their

roles, these will be the sole individuals empowered to appoint the municipal CCID judge and

prosecuting attorneys.

33
See HB 1020 §§ 4(1), 5 (explicitly defining roles of CCID judge and CCID prosecuting
attorneys by reference to municipal judge and prosecutors); see also Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-
7(1) (defining jurisdiction of municipal judge). The CCID judge’s substantive jurisdiction is
defined to include “all preliminary matters and criminal matters authorized by law for municipal
courts” and “the same jurisdiction as municipal courts to hear and determine all cases charging
violations of the motor vehicle and traffic laws of this state, and violations of the City of
Jackson’s traffic ordinance or ordinances related to the disturbance of the public peace” that
occur within the CCID. HB 1020 § 4(1)(a) (emphasis added). The qualifications and
compensation for CCID judges are likewise tied to those for Jackson’s municipal court. Id.
§ 4(2)-(3). And the CCID prosecuting attorneys also must “prosecute cases . . . in the same
manner and with the same authority of law provided for district attorneys and county prosecuting
attorneys.” HB 1020 § 5(1).
34
Rep. Robert L. Johnson III, MS House Floor – 7 February 2023; 10:00 AM, YouTube at
7:01:42 (Feb. 7, 2023), https://youtu.be/HtruSFI0avs?t=25302 (imploring the legislature not to
create a “city within a city,” as that is “not what the idea was behind the Capitol Complex”).
- 29 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 30 of 35

Mississippi law makes municipal judges of paramount importance to the overall system

of local government, because “without a municipal judge, a town cannot enforce its municipal

ordinances.” Op. Atty. Gen. Hatcher, 1999 WL 1075209 (Miss. A.G. Sept. 24, 1999).

Even assuming for purposes of this Statement of Interest that Defendants have articulated

a legitimate state interest, HB 1020’s CCID court provisions are not a rational means to advance

that interest. As discussed above, HB 1020 makes no substantive changes, instead, it only

creates a duplicative court for a subset of Jacksonians that will likely be plagued by the same

infrastructure and resource deficiencies impacting existing municipal courts. See, Section I.A.3.,

supra; see also, e.g., examples cited in Section I.A.2.c., supra. To the extent the CCID court

provides an additional resource, it did not require singling out the people of Jackson and

removing from them local control. Such an action is not rationally connected with the interest

served by the legislation that deprives Jackson, and Jackson alone, the full local control over

municipal courts that all other municipalities in Mississippi enjoy.

The relationship between the “asserted goal” of crime reduction and the means of

singling out Jackson to lose local control over municipal court positions “is so attenuated as to

render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.” City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 446. The decision in

City of Greensboro is instructive. As here, the North Carolina Legislature “withdr[ew] from the

City of Greensboro and its voters certain statutory rights available to all other municipalities and

municipal voters statewide.” City of Greensboro, 120 F. Supp. 3d at 483. In that instance it was

the right of a city council to change its structure, and the right of voters to initiate or reject a

restructuring through referendum. Id. Because the legislation itself and state officials did not

offer any “interest that is protected or promoted by excluding Greensboro and its voters from

rights given to other municipal voters,” id. at 488, the “unequal treatment of Greensboro voters

- 30 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 31 of 35

likely violate[d] their equal protection rights,” id. at 489. Moreover, like HB 1020, the

restrictions on Greensboro residents were “part and parcel of a larger statutory scheme that treats

Greensboro voters differently.” Id. at 488.

Ultimately, the State cannot draw the classification it has drawn between Jacksonians and

residents of other Mississippi municipalities with respect to local control over municipal-

equivalent courts. Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their Fourteenth

Amendment claim.

III. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent a Preliminary Injunction.

Plaintiffs have shown the “substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not

issued” required for a preliminary injunction. Jones, 880 F.3d at 759. Defendants’ removal of

Jacksonians’ local control over the municipal courts that govern them strikes at that heart of

democratic accountability and voters’ ability to influence local appointments by electing the

officials who appoint them. “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the

essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of

representative government.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Restrictions on the

fundamental right to vote are “routinely” found to constitute irreparable injury, and

“discriminatory voting procedures in particular are the kind of serious violation of the

Constitution . . . for which courts have granted immediate relief.” League of Women Voters of N.

Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014) (enjoining elimination of same-

day registration and counting wrong-precinct votes under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act)

(quoting United States v. City of Cambridge, 799 F.2d 137, 140 (4th Cir.1986)) (internal

quotation marks omitted); see also Murphree v. Winter, 589 F. Supp. 374, 381 (S.D. Miss. 1984)

(citing Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373–74 (1976)) (“[T]he deprivation of a fundamental right

constitutes irreparable harm requiring the issuance of a preliminary injunction.”).

- 31 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 32 of 35

It is no answer, as Defendants may suggest, that municipal judges are not directly elected.

Mississippi law establishes an intimate connection between municipal courts and the local

community, one key aspect of which is that judges and prosecutors “shall be appointed by the

governing authorities of the municipality.” Miss. Code Ann. § 21-23-3; see also id. (generally

requiring municipal judges to be a “qualified elector” in the county where the municipality is

located). Moreover, local officials maintain the ongoing ability to oversee and remove municipal

judges, who are at-will employees. See Jones v. City of Hattiesburg, 228 So. 3d 816, 819 (Miss.

Ct. App. 2017). Municipal judges are thus accountable to local voters through local elected

officials, and the State’s creation of a municipal-equivalent court to have judges and prosecutors

play explicitly the same role, but severing local control over these officials, thus burdens the

rights of local voters.

This imposition of direct state intervention into the municipal justice system cannot later

be recompensed; every day that Jacksonians live with this arrangement constitutes a discrete,

irreparable denial of equal protection. Plaintiffs have accordingly demonstrated they will suffer

irreparable harm absent an injunction.

IV. The Balance of Equities and the Public Interest Support a Preliminary
Injunction.

The balance of equities and public interest also weigh in favor of a preliminary

injunction. “[E]nforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest.”

Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Colmenero, No. 1:23-cv-917, 2023 WL 5655712, at *29 (W.D. Tex.

Aug. 31, 2023), appeal filed, No. 23-50637 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d

638, 653 (D.C. Cir. 2013)) (alteration in original omitted); see also Ingebretsen ex rel.

Ingebretsen v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 88 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he public interest

- 32 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 33 of 35

[is] not disserved by an injunction preventing [the] implementation” of an unconstitutional

statute.); Texas, 566 F. Supp. 3d at 690.

In addition, allowing the provisions of HB 1020 to proceed prior to a full hearing on the

merits of the claims here has the potential to create substantial confusion in Jackson’s municipal

justice system. Individuals subject to prosecution or preliminary matters in a court that is later

declared unconstitutional could raise complicated issues that would not be present if Jackson’s

existing municipal courts were allowed to proceed unchanged. The existing municipal judges

and prosecutors appointed by local leaders will continue to have jurisdiction both within and

outside the CCID, as they would have with HB 1020 in effect. Furthermore, an injunction would

not prevent the Mississippi legislature from enacting other measures intended to combat crime

that are consistent with the Equal Protection Clause, or from adding additional resources to the

existing circuit and municipal courts in Hinds County and Jackson, provided they do not

unconstitutionally burden the rights of voters in those jurisdictions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court grant

Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction.

- 33 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 34 of 35

Dated: December 5, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

TODD W. GEE KRISTEN CLARKE

United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
Southern District of Mississippi Civil Rights Division

/s/ Angela Givens Williams /s/ Victor J. Williamson

ANGELA GIVENS WILLIAMS (#102469) T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR. (AL 6671R63T)
MITZI DEASE PAIGE (#6014) JOHN A. RUSS IV (CA 192471)
Assistant U.S. Attorneys VICTOR J. WILLIAMSON (DC 495783)
501 E. Court St. J. ERIC RICH (MD 0012130218)
Suite 4.430 KAITLIN TOYAMA (CA 318993)
Jackson, MS 39201 JOHN POWERS (DC 1024831)
Phone: (601) 965-4480 ROBERT WEINER (DC 298133)
[email protected] Attorneys
[email protected] Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW – 4CON
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone: (800) 253-3931
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

- 34 -
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 119 Filed 12/05/23 Page 35 of 35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 5, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

clerk of the court using the Court’s ECF system, which will send notification of this filing to

counsel of record.

/s/ Victor J. Williamson

VICTOR J. WILLIAMSON
Attorney, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice

- 35 -