US appeals court denies injunction for Mississippi state-run court law in capital city

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied an injunction Thursday against a Mississippi law that created a state-run court district in the state’s capital of Jackson. The court held that the plaintiffs in the case had failed to show standing to maintain a case for a preliminary injunction. The NAACP originally appealed to the Fifth Circuit on behalf of several Jackson, Mississippi residents after losing a district court case only a few days ago.

The case stems from Mississippi House Bill 1020, which created a court with judges appointed by the state’s Supreme Court and prosecutors appointed by the state’s Attorney General in Jackson’s Capital Complex Improvement District (CCID). The CCID is an administrative district that includes nine square miles encompassing the state capital. Several wealthy residential and shopping parts of the city were also included in the district. The bill also gives the court jurisdiction over misdemeanors, violations of city ordinances and felony preliminary matters.

Judges and prosecutors of municipal courts in Mississippi are generally appointed by locally elected officials.

Critics of the bill argue that the legislation foists unelected judicial officers appointed by white conservative state actors on Jackson citizens, a city with a considerable Black majority that skews Democrat. Meanwhile proponents of the bill cite the high crime rate in Jackson as justification for state intervention in the city’s affairs.

The NAACP argued that the appointments violated their equal protection rights under the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The NAACP claimed that the appointments would harm Jackson residents by creating a judicial body with no accountability, which dilutes their voting rights. They also argued that the law damaged the appointment power of local elected officials and took away one of the local governments key functions namely enforcement of its own laws.

The court rejected these arguments, writing that any injury sustained was not “particularized” and that meritless prosecution was only hypothetical. Additionally the court held that the city’s residents had no “legally protected interest in electing local officials with exclusive appointment power for the CCID court.” The court also rejected claims that the plaintiffs were injured because benefits of the law would go to an area with a disproportionately white majority.

In a statement to the press, general counsel for the NAACP Janette McCarthy Wallace expressed disappointment with the ruling but vowed to continue to fight the law without elaborating on future strategy.