Federal judge extends order blocking HB 1020 from taking effect, at least for now

A federal judge has extended an order blocking the first steps of House Bill 1020 from taking effect, at least until the court has had a chance to review whether Mississippi Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Randolph should remain as a named party in the case.

Nearly seven hours after the first federal hearing on the controversial bill began, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi Henry Wingate announced he would be extending the restraining order he issued last month, in part due to his proceedings being delayed by actions in state court.

More: House Bill 1020 ruling appealed to Mississippi Supreme Court as federal hearing looms

A timeline of events was then agreed upon by Wingate and the attorneys involved in the case. First, attorneys for the plaintiffs and NAACP, who are challenging the compliance of HB 1020 with the U.S. Constitution, will file new evidence and a motion for a preliminary injunction on Wednesday.

Then, Wingate will decide whether or not Randolph should be dropped from the case by either Friday or early next week. On Monday the judge said a written decision would be released by the following Monday at the latest, but it is unclear if the judge realized that the deadline he gave falls on Memorial Day, a federal holiday.

Next, lawyers for the state attorney general, who are defending the constitutionality of the law, asked for two weeks from the plaintiffs' Wednesday filing for them to review it and formulate a response.

After that, the plaintiffs will have another 48 hours to formulate and file their own written rebuttal. Wingate said, at that point, he would quickly schedule oral arguments, after which he may issue what is known as a "bench ruling," where a judge announces their decision immediately following oral arguments, rather than waiting until the full written decision is ready.

Wingate said the case is too important to have issued a bench ruling today on Randolph's involvement, but that after issuing a written decision on that matter he will be more likely to go with the quicker option in the future.

The decision in the larger case largely hinges on the plaintiff's assertion that establishing new state-appointed judges within the Hinds County Court infringes upon the voting rights of the county's residents and violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Civil Rights attorney Carroll Rhodes, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs Monday, said that over the last more than 30 years Mississippi has added judges to nine of its circuit courts, and created a new circuit court district, and that all of those additional judges have been elected. Rhodes also noted the state's established history of racial discrimination in voting and elections.

"This case is about how voters, specifically Black voters, in Hinds County are not being treated the same as white voters in other counties," Rhodes said.

Hinds County is majority-Black and has elected all-Black circuit court judges since 2018, Rhodes said, but if HB 1020 were to take effect, Randolph would be able to appoint any judge at his complete discretion. Mark Nelson, a private attorney representing Randolph, pointed out that Randolph has appointed Black judges to positions during his tenure. Nelson primarily argued Monday that Randolph could not take a position on the merits of the case. Nelson's son, Ned Nelson, is also on the team representing Randolph.

Rex Shannon, special assistant attorney general, argued that equal protection cases must be based upon comparing "similarly situated" groups of people. Shannon argued that residents of Hinds County are not "similarly situated" to those in other counties for a variety of reasons. Those include it being the largest county in the state, being the seat of state government, hosting the state capitol, state offices and the state medical center, and the city's rates of violent crime. While violent crime is high throughout much of the state, Shannon cited Jackson's 2021 nation-leading rate of homicides per-capita.

"The driving impetus of House Bill 1020 is to address public safety concerns," Shannon said.

Shannon also referenced "crises in local leadership," "dysfunctional city government" and an "equally dysfunctional county board of supervisors."

Rhodes later answered a question from Wingate by saying "we don't disagree with what the statistics show" on crime, but constitutional and Civil Rights concerns on appointed judges remain. Rhodes also questioned whether the appointments would significantly aid in the violent crime rate when the state crime lab has been plagued by its own backlogs.

Jackson officials speak out: Reasons why HB 1020 is not right solution for city's courts

Rhodes also said his clients may end up challenging HB 1020 on grounds beyond the appointment of the four special judges, but that this challenge is more urgent with Randolph required to make his appointments before the rest of the law takes effect.

With the timeline agreed to by Wingate and the attorneys, a full resolution in the federal challenge to HB 1020 could come as early as mid-June.

This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: Federal judge extends order blocking MS HB 1020 judicial appointments