Mississippi
Judge lets NAACP Jackson ARPA water funding lawsuit move forward
Wingate rejects standing challenge in Jackson ARPA lawsuit
Subscribe to the Clarion Ledger
If you are not a subscriber, consider subscribing now. You will also get access to the Clarion Ledger’s E-Edition, the electronic replica of the print publication along with print archives. The E-edition is also available on our app.
USA Today Network
- A federal judge ruled that a lawsuit filed by the NAACP and Jackson residents against Mississippi can proceed.
- The lawsuit alleges the state discriminated against the majority-Black city by withholding federal water infrastructure funds.
- The state argued the plaintiffs lacked legal standing and filed the lawsuit too late, but the judge affirmed their right to sue.
- Plaintiffs claim Mississippi created additional barriers for Jackson to access American Rescue Plan Act funds, worsening the 2022 water crisis.
A federal judge said the NAACP and Jackson residents suing Mississippi over withheld American Rescue Plan Act water infrastructure money have cleared the first major hurdle in their lawsuit against the state.
During a hearing Monday, May 18, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate announced he had rejected the state’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the case, clearing the way for the lawsuit to continue.
The lawsuit was filed by the Jackson branch of the NAACP along with Jackson residents Doris Glasper and Nsombi Lambright. It alleges Mississippi officials discriminated against Jackson, a majority-Black city, through the way they controlled and distributed federal American Rescue Plan Act water infrastructure funding that plaintiffs argue could have helped prevent or lessen the city’s 2022 water crisis.
The hearing was a continuation of arguments first heard Thursday, May 14, where Mississippi attorneys asked Wingate to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds, including standing, statute of limitations issues and 11th Amendment immunity claims.
But Monday, Wingate said the plaintiffs had met the legal threshold required to keep the case alive.
“This court is persuaded that this lawsuit shall go forward,” Wingate said from the bench. “This court has determined that these plaintiffs, all of them, have standing.”
Wingate said he is still finalizing a written opinion explaining his reasoning and expects to issue one later this week that will address the remaining dismissal arguments as well.
The state had argued the plaintiffs could not directly connect their alleged harms — including boil water notices, low pressure and prolonged water outages — to Mississippi’s handling of ARPA funds. Instead, state attorneys argued those problems stemmed from Jackson’s longstanding water system failures themselves.
The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argued Mississippi created additional barriers specifically for Jackson after lawmakers approved Senate Bill 2822 in 2022, including requiring Jackson’s award money to flow through a separate state-controlled Capital City Water/Sewer Projects Fund. Jackson was the only municipality to have a separate fund.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs also argued that while Jackson was publicly awarded roughly $35.6 million in ARPA funding, much of the money never actually reached the city.
Monday’s hearing focused narrowly on the legal question of whether the NAACP and the two residents had the right to sue in the first place.
Wingate summarized the plaintiffs’ claims in court, saying they alleged Mississippi’s actions “prevented the disbursement of federal funds that had been directed at and allocated to the City of Jackson” and that those delays prolonged residents’ suffering tied to the city’s water problems.
Wingate also noted the NAACP argued its Jackson membership had dropped from roughly 500 members to around 300 members because of the city’s ongoing water problems, which the organization cited as part of its standing argument.
After announcing his ruling on standing, Wingate immediately moved the hearing into arguments over the state’s statute of limitations defense. The hearing recessed for 20 minutes before attorneys resumed arguments on the remaining motions to dismiss.
The next fight: Did the plaintiffs wait too long to sue?
After ruling the plaintiffs had standing, Wingate moved into another major argument from the state: whether the lawsuit was filed too late.
State attorney Lisa Reppeto argued the clock started in April 2022 when the state’s ARPA laws were passed, meaning the lawsuit filed in August 2025 fell outside the three-year statute of limitations.
The state also argued the lawsuit never identified a specific ARPA funding request that was denied by Mississippi.
But Crystal McElrath, an attorney representing the plaintiffs through the Southern Poverty Law Center, pushed back, arguing the alleged discrimination and harms continued well beyond 2022. They pointed to actions taken by state officials in late 2022 and afterward, along with ongoing water-related problems residents say they continue to experience.
McElrath also argued Mississippi intentionally created a separate and confusing process for Jackson’s ARPA money by requiring the funds to flow through a special state-controlled account.
Both Reppeto and McElrath sparred Monday over the “continuing violation doctrine,” a legal argument centered on whether the alleged discrimination happened only when Mississippi passed the ARPA laws in 2022 or whether the state’s later handling of Jackson’s funding kept the clock running for the lawsuit.
“The system itself, the process created, was intentionally designed to prevent the City of Jackson from being able to access those funds,” McElrath said.
Wingate did not immediately rule Monday on the statute of limitations argument.
Charlie Drape, the Jackson beat reporter, has been covering all of the nuances of the Jackson water crisis since 2024.