JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi Supreme Court Chief Justice Mike Randolph delivered an uncommon speech to a federal court on Wednesday, denouncing attempts to involve him in a lawsuit challenging a recently enacted state law. He referred to the situation as a “circus” that lacked any legal precedent in the history of the United States.
Randolph was named as a defendant in the lawsuit that contested House Bill 1020. This legislation, signed into law by Republican Governor Tate Reeves in April, has been temporarily halted from implementation by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate. The law aimed to expand the state’s involvement in the judiciary and law enforcement matters in Jackson.
Addressing Judge Wingate, Randolph expressed that it was the first time in over 19 years that he addressed a courtroom from the podium instead of the judge’s bench.
“This is a truly unprecedented circus,” Randolph remarked. “I have not come across any case in the history of the United States that resembles this.”
The NAACP, represented by its national, state, and local chapters, filed a lawsuit asserting that the new state law would reintroduce “separate and unequal policing” to Mississippi’s predominantly Black capital. The law expands the jurisdiction of the state-run police department, which could potentially exacerbate disparities in law enforcement. Additionally, the legislation establishes a new court in a specific part of Jackson, with a judge appointed by Chief Justice Randolph. Furthermore, the law mandates Randolph to appoint four temporary judges to work alongside the four elected judges in the circuit court of that area.
Randolph emphasized that it was unprecedented for a state Supreme Court Chief Justice to be implicated in a constitutional challenge against a state law.
On June 2, Judge Wingate ruled that Randolph could not be sued in relation to the state law, effectively dismissing him as a defendant in the lawsuit. Wingate based his decision on the principle of judicial immunity, which shields judges from being sued for most of their official actions.
During the proceedings, attorneys representing the NAACP contended that Randolph should still be included in the lawsuit as a “nominal party.” This would imply that Randolph would remain a part of the lawsuit, even though he has no personal stake in its outcome.
Top of Form
According to Reeves and legislative leaders, the purpose of the law is to address the issue of crime. However, critics including the NAACP argue that the establishment of a new court and the appointment of judges by Chief Justice Randolph, who is white, is an attempt by the predominantly white and Republican-led Legislature to undermine the local control held by residents of Jackson and Hinds County. Both of these areas have majority-Black populations and are governed by Democrats.
After his address in federal court on Wednesday, Randolph provided reporters with documents containing photocopied letters and text messages allegedly exchanged between state judges. These messages, some originating from Hinds County, expressed gratitude to Randolph for appointing special judges to alleviate the backlog of cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Randolph presented these letters as evidence that he does not engage in discriminatory practices when appointing judges and is impartial in his decisions regarding counties.
During the proceedings on Wednesday, Judge Wingate also deliberated on whether to consolidate the lawsuit challenging House Bill 1020 with another lawsuit concerning a separate state law enacted in 2023. The latter lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Mississippi Poor People’s Campaign and several other organizations. It asserts that Senate Bill 2343 will curtail freedom of speech by mandating individuals to seek permission from state law enforcement authorities for any protest near state buildings.
The NAACP’s lawsuit against House Bill 1020 alleges that the law is racially discriminatory, in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. On the other hand, the lawsuit against Senate Bill 2343 contends that the law infringes upon the protections granted by the First Amendment, which safeguards freedom of speech.
