The Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics has begun to return property that the agency seized after the administrative forfeiture law was repealed.

This past session, the Mississippi legislature allowed the administrative forfeiture provision to sunset, meaning the previous law ceased to be in effect at the end of June. Administrative forfeiture allows agents of the state to take property valued under $20,000 and forfeit it by merely providing the individual with a notice. An individual would then have to file a petition in court to appeal.

On September 19, 2018, MBN sent notices allowing retrieval of seized property, totaling more than $100,000, to eight individuals. This includes:

• $3,757 of seized currency to Courtney Walker of Biloxi
• $3,000 of seized currency and two rifles to Michael Willis of Cyrstal Springs
• $88,737 of sized currency to Luis Medeles and Christopher Zavala, both of Brownsville, Texas
• $1,860 of seized currency to Dewayne Spearman of Pontotoc
• $11,938 of seized currency to Tejinder Kaur of Brandon
• $2,300 of seized currency and a pistol to Dexter Danzel Conner of Tuscaloosa, Ala.
• A seized handgun and a holster to Jessica Meredith of Florence

On September 10, the Mississippi Justice Institute sent a letter to MBN advising the agency of the change in the law after it became apparent that they were continuing to seize property after the July 1 repeal date.

“We are glad to see that the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics is not only following the law, but is taking corrective action in cases where administrative forfeiture procedures were incorrectly used,” said Aaron Rice, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute. “As a public interest law firm dedicated to ensuring that our laws are carried out in a way that protects liberty and honors constitutional rights, we are happy to have been able to assist MBN in carrying out its duties while remaining in compliance with new changes in Mississippi law.”

Until 2017, Mississippi was the wild west of sorts when it came to civil asset forfeiture. In 2015, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, along with local police departments, seized nearly $4 million in cash.

They seized amounts as low as $75. They seized trucks, cars, ATVs, riding lawnmowers, utility trailers, and 18-wheelers; an arsenal of assorted handguns, shotguns, and rifles; cell phones, cameras, laptops, tablets, turntables, and flat screen TVs; boat motors, weed eaters, and power drills; and one comic book collection, according to a report from Reason.

And that does not include numbers from police departments that work independently of the Bureau of Narcotics. Until 2017, they didn’t track or publish asset forfeiture data.

Moreover, family members, especially parents, often had their cars or other property seized for the alleged crimes of their children. This happened even though the parents are not connected to the illegal activity. For example, in 2015, the Desoto County Sheriff’s Department agreed to return a 2006 Chevy Trailblazer owned by the mother of the petitioner, Jesse Smith, in exchange for $1,650.

In 2017, the legislature provided needed reforms. Now, seizing agencies must obtain a search warrant issued by a judge within 72 hours of seizing property. And all forfeitures are posted on a publicly accessible website.

A government boycott of a company for an exercise of free speech would be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

Chick-fil-A has been heavily criticized for its reputation as a supporter of traditional marriage.  The company’s CEO has made public comments in support of traditional marriage, and the company has donated money to organizations that opposed same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.

While it is Chick-Fil-A’s constitutional right to engage in free speech, liberal government officials around the country could not stand it.  When Chick-Fil-A attempted to re-open a franchise at the Denver International Airport, the city council saw its opportunity for retribution.

Councilman Paul Lopez called his opposition to allowing the chain at the airport “really, truly a moral issue on the city.”  “We can do better than this brand in Denver at our airport, in my estimation,” another member Jolon Clark said.

The problem was that Chick-Fil-A’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, which meant the government could not punish the company in retaliation for its speech.  The Denver officials had made it abundantly clear that their opposition to allowing Chick-Fil-A into the airport was due to their personal objection to Chick-Fil-A’s speech.  Because of this, the city was ultimately forced to allow the chain into the airport.

You don’t have to be a constitutional scholar to understand that this exclusion would have been a violation of the First Amendment.  It doesn’t even pass the smell test.  If something like this happened in Mississippi, many citizens would be outraged. Rightfully so.

But this is happening in Mississippi right now, just not to Chick-Fil-A.  Instead, Nike has drawn the ire of the Mississippi Department of Public Safety (MDPS) for its new ad campaign featuring former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who is widely known for sparking a protest movement in professional sports where players kneel during the national anthem.

The MDPS commissioner recently announced to the Associated Press that MDPS will no longer purchase training equipment from Nike.

Like the Denver officials, the MDPS commissioner made clear that his decision to initiate a government boycott was based on his personal objection to the speech made by Nike, saying: “As commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, I will not support vendors who do not support law enforcement and our military.”

The commissioner’s views are understandable and well-intentioned.  He is a Navy veteran and a long serving law enforcement officer.  He appears to feel strongly about this issue.

As a proud American myself, and as a fellow military veteran who lost a leg in Iraq, I would not personally choose the national anthem as a venue for protest as Kaepernick has, or to highlight this act as Nike has.  However, I fought to protect their right to do just that without fear of government retribution, and I am always heartened to see citizens actually exercising that right.

Moreover, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, of which the Mississippi Justice Institute is a division, has clearly communicated, on several occasions, its opposition to using the national anthem as a venue to protest at sporting events.

But this issue is not about the commissioner’s views or my views on Nike’s speech, or the identity politics which would elevate our views above those of others based on our status as veterans.  It is about the Constitution that we have both sworn to protect.

A government boycott of Nike is simply unconstitutional.

Here is the tricky thing about the Constitution: it works both ways.  If you stand by and watch its protections erode while your adversaries’ rights are under assault, you can’t be shocked when its protections are not there for you when the tables are turned.  If you don’t want a government boycott of Tim Tebow’s kneeling, you can’t defend a government boycott of Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling.

A government boycott in retaliation for corporate speech also ignores Mississippi law establishing bidding requirements for most public purchases.  We have those laws for a reason.

Lastly, conducting a government boycott is simply not the proper role of government.  A public official boycotting vendors with certain views implies that taxpayer money is their money, to reward or punish whom they see fit based on their own personal beliefs.  Many Mississippians may agree strongly with the vendor’s message, and other Mississippians may oppose it.  The government should not use public funds to attempt to speak for all taxpaying Mississippians on matters of public discourse.

If a public official wants to personally boycott a company in response to its speech, they are free to do that and the First Amendment protects that right for them.  But when acting in their official capacity using taxpayer money, neither the Constitution, nor Mississippi law, nor a healthy respect for the opinions of their fellow Mississippians allow for such personal indulgences.

The Mississippi Justice Institute has requested the commissioner to rescind his government boycott.  We trust he will uphold our Constitution.

This column appeared in the Clarion Ledger on September 28, 2018. 

The Mississippi Justice Institute, the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, sent a letter today to the Mississippi Department of Public Safety concerning the Department’s proposed boycott of Nike.

MJI outlined that a government boycott based upon a personal objection to speech made by a company is unconstitutional. This is the case whether it is the government boycott of Chick-Fil-A in Denver or Nike in Mississippi.

“A government boycott of a company for an exercise of free speech would be a flagrant violation of the First Amendment,” Aaron Rice, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, said. “For example, in Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, Wabaunsee Cty., Kan. v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects independent contractors from the termination of at-will government contracts in retaliation for their exercise of the freedom of speech. In a similar case, the Court in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) held that politically based refusals to hire are just as unconstitutional as politically based dismissals of employees. What is clear from these cases is that the government cannot use taxpayer money to punish speech, either by canceling existing financial arrangements or by refusing to enter into future business relationships.”

In the past, MCPP has clearly communicated its view that using the national anthem as a venue for protest at sporting events is not appropriate and the NFL has clearly suffered from the consumer backlash. However, there is a difference between consumers exercising rights based on personally-held views and the government attempting to do it on behalf of all citizens.

“As a proud American, and as a fellow military veteran who lost a leg in Iraq, I would not personally choose the national anthem as a venue for protest as Colin Kaepernick has, or to highlight this act as Nike has,” Rice added. “However, I fought to protect their right to do just that without fear of government retribution, and I am always heartened to see citizens actually exercising that right - even when I may disagree with their viewpoint.

“MCPP and MJI are private organizations with the objective, among other things, of holding government accountable to its proper role as defined by the Constitution. To look the other way simply because we may disagree with the speech in question would be to fail in fulfilling this objective.”

Read the letter here: https://mspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Open-Letter-to-MDPS-Commissioner-9.27.18.pdf

This past session, Mississippi joined a number of other states in reforming civil asset forfeiture laws.

Lawmakers allowed the administrative forfeiture provision to sunset, meaning the previous law ceased to be in effect at the end of June. In response, Mississippi Center for Public Policy and the Mississippi Justice Institute joined with Empower Mississippi and national conservative organizations in thanking the legislative leadership for ending administrative forfeiture in the state.

Administrative forfeiture allows agents of the state to take property valued under $20,000 and forfeit it by merely providing the individual with a notice. An individual would then have to file a petition in court to appeal. This had the net result of requiring the individual to pay an often-large legal bill to get his or her property back. This, naturally, has an outsized negative effect on low-income households.

Asset forfeiture reforms

Until 2017, Mississippi was the wild west of sorts when it came to civil asset forfeiture. In 2015, the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, along with local police departments, seized nearly $4 million in cash.

They seized amounts as low as $75. They seized trucks, cars, ATVs, riding lawnmowers, utility trailers, and 18-wheelers; an arsenal of assorted handguns, shotguns, and rifles; cell phones, cameras, laptops, tablets, turntables, and flat screen TVs; boat motors, weed eaters, and power drills; and one comic book collection, according to a report from Reason.

And that does not include numbers from police departments that work independently of the Bureau of Narcotics. Until 2017, they didn’t track or publish asset forfeiture data.

Moreover, family members, especially parents, often have their cars or other property seized for the alleged crimes of their children. This happens even though the parents are not connected to the illegal activity. For example, in 2015, the Desoto County Sheriff's Department agreed to return a 2006 Chevy Trailblazer owned by the mother of the petitioner, Jesse Smith, in exchange for $1,650.

In 2017, the legislature provided needed reforms. Now, seizing agencies must obtain a search warrant issued by a judge within 72 hours of seizing property. And all forfeitures are posted on a publicly accessible website. Repealing administrative forfeiture is another important step.

Voters oppose civil forfeiture 

Polling shows a large cross-section of Mississippi voters oppose the practice of civil asset forfeiture.

According to a poll from 2016, 88 percent of voters oppose civil forfeiture, including 89 percent of Republican voters. Every category of Mississippi voter identified in the poll — by race, age, sex, political party and district — is against police taking property from people not convicted of a crime.

By reforming the civil forfeiture system, Mississippi is adopting policies that are in-line with voters in the state and reforms that other states have enacted.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is in hot water after saying that America “was never that great.” Cuomo is furiously trying to walk back this remark because all reasonable Americans understand that our country, while still struggling to live up to its ideals, has always been the greatest country known to the world. Politicians who do not understand this basic truth should plan to keep their day jobs.

But what made America so great?

When the Declaration of Independence was adopted on July 4, 1776, America was a fledgling experiment in self-government, which the rest of the world expected to fail miserably. All of the wealth and power was in the Old World, with its palaces, empires and powdered wig-wearing aristocrats. America was considered the boondocks, full of log cabins and fur cap-wearing farmers, trappers and frontiersmen.

A few years later, America had fielded a Continental Army that defeated the largest military power in world history and had become the freest and most prosperous country in the world.

A limited government and an empowered citizenry

America became great because the Constitution limited the power of government and empowered individuals to lead their lives as they saw fit. The framers of the Constitution did not know what America would look like 230 years in the future, but they knew they were tired of being subject to the whims of a king. They carefully constructed a government that had just enough power to impose civil order, protect citizens from foreign invaders and secure individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not enough power to violate those rights itself. To achieve this, the framers confined the powers of the federal government to those specifically listed in the Constitution and divided that power among three branches of government.

The framers also took a belt-and-suspenders approach to protecting the rights of the people. They added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution to ensure that certain important rights were never violated, even though the framers themselves said that the Constitution had not granted the federal government the power to violate those rights to begin with. Additional amendments were later added to the Constitution to extend its protection of rights to all people, regardless of race or gender, and to keep state and local governments from violating the people’s rights.

If you don’t recognize this strictly limited government, you would be forgiven. Today, politicians say they can do just about anything they want, except what is explicitly forbidden by the Bill of Rights, and even that is up for debate. When asked where the Constitution authorized a proposed law, one congressman admitted, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.”

Every detail of our lives is subjected to government rules

The rest of Congress appears to feel the same way. The Federal Register, which contains all proposed and final regulations issued by federal agencies, has published over 3.2 million pages. If it were printed and stacked, it would be taller than the Washington Monument. This does not take into account all the laws passed by Congress or by state and local governments.

Because of all these rules, the cost of doing business in America is staggering, and startups and small businesses are at a competitive disadvantage to big businesses that can easily afford it. Those large companies can also afford to pay lobbyists to convince lawmakers to pass even more laws that keep new competitors at bay. All the while, countless Americans are prevented from pursuing their version of the American dream.

Where did we go wrong?

The framers envisioned the judiciary as the guardians of individual rights. But over time, the courts have become more interested in picking and choosing which rights to protect or neglect. In the process, they have invented government powers that do not exist. The result is that our government is far more powerful than the founders ever intended.

You may have heard the term “activist judges.” We certainly don’t need those, but we do need an engaged judiciary that takes seriously its role in the system of checks and balances so carefully designed by the framers.

The good news is that we can all play a part in restoring the American vision. Courts will only take our constitutional rights seriously if we do. We need citizens who are willing to stand up for their rights and attorneys who are willing to advocate for those people, simply because it is the right thing to do. At the Mississippi Justice Institute, we have made that our mission.

The Mississippi Ethics Commission has found that the mayor and the alderman in the city of Natchez violated Mississippi's Open Meetings Act when they entered into executive session to discuss proposals for garbage collection and recycling services.

The Mississippi Justice Institute, along with The Natchez Democrat and private citizens, filed complaints with the Ethics Commission. The ruling calls on the city and the mayor to comply with the Open Meetings Act. One of the core functions of MJI is to hold our government responsible to its citizens. Transparency is a requirement of governing by principle.

MJI's arguments have been affirmed, once again, by the Mississippi Ethics Commission.

Read the final order here.

Mississippi Center for Public Policy (MCPP) announced today that Aaron Rice has been named the new Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI).

Founded in 2016, MJI serves as the legal arm of MCPP, representing Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Rice replaces Shadrack White, who was recently appointed State Auditor of Mississippi by Gov. Phil Bryant.

“Simply put, there may not be a more important public policy initiative than what the Mississippi Justice Institute does every day to allow ordinary Mississippians to pursue their own version of happiness and prosperity,” Jon Pritchett, the President and CEO of Mississippi Center for Public Policy said. “When normal citizens experience barriers on the road to prosperity, it is often a barrier placed there by government. Aaron Rice is the kind of person who has never let any obstacle stand in his way. This is why I’m delighted that Aaron is leading our efforts.”

“Aaron Rice is a skilled litigator who will continue MJI's mission of pursuing cases that will foster economic liberty and personal freedom in Mississippi,” Mike Dawkins, Chairman of the Board of MCPP, said. “Aaron has a vision for the types of cases MJI should pursue and for how we can multiply our efforts through his recruitment and management of volunteer lawyers.”

“I am thrilled to have the opportunity to lead MJI,” Aaron said.  “To fight every day for the constitutional rights of Mississippians is a dream come true for me. Constitutional rights may sound like an old issue that was settled a long time ago, but every day, the lives of ordinary Mississippians are affected because the government has ignored their rights.  We want to put an end to that, and empower Mississippians to live freer, more prosperous lives.”

MJI’s activities include direct litigation on behalf of individuals, intervening in cases important to public policy, participating in regulatory and rule making proceedings, and filing amicus, or “friend of the Court,” briefs to offer unique perspectives on significant legal matters in Mississippi and Federal courts.

In a short period of time, MJI has built a reputation as an organization who will fight for Mississippians, whether it is entrepreneurs hoping to start a business, parents looking for a better educational option for their children, or taxpayers wanting to hold government accountable.

“I've known Aaron for over a decade and worked with him in the past,” Shadrack White, State Auditor and former Director of MJI, said. “I can say without hesitation that he is a brilliant lawyer and, more importantly, a man of deep conviction, courage, and character. MJI is in good hands. I look forward to seeing the work he will do on behalf of Mississippians in his new position.”

Aaron is native of Hattiesburg. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Aaron felt called to serve his country. He joined the Marine Corps and was deployed to Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines; the battalion would go on to suffer the highest number of casualties of any in the Iraq war. Aaron received the Purple Heart for sustaining combat injuries that resulted in the loss of his left leg below the knee.

Upon returning home, Aaron earned a degree in political science from Mississippi State University and was awarded the national Truman Scholarship to pursue his graduate studies. He earned his law degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law, where he focused his studies on constitutional law.

Prior to joining the Mississippi Justice Institute, Aaron built his career as a litigation attorney at Butler Snow, a nationally recognized law firm in Mississippi. Aaron is a Fellow of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) National Trial College at Harvard Law School, and a Graduate of the International Association of Defense Counsel (IADC) Trial Academy at Stanford Law School.

“My vision is for MJI to fight for ordinary Mississippians who want to do simple things every American has the right to do,” Aaron said. “Things like earning an honest living, keeping what rightfully belongs to them, sending their kids to a good school, and speaking freely about business or politics.

“If we are successful, every government body in Mississippi will know: if you overstep your bounds, we will find out about it, and we will stop you.  Every Mississippian will know: if the government is unnecessarily standing in your way, you can fight back, and we can help.”

Aaron is a Deacon at Madison Heights Church, PCA. He and his wife, Kelly, live in Madison with their four children, Clark, Griffin, Ramsey, and Miles.

This year’s U.S. Supreme Court term is drawing to a close this week, and one thing is plain: this is the best Supreme Court—thanks to Justice Gorsuch and the general trend of the judiciary in the Trump Administration—that our country has had in my lifetime.

For proof, look no further than two cases handed down this week, NIFLA v. Becerra and Trump v. Hawaii.

The first case, NIFLA, was about whether California could require pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post information about where patients could receive abortions. Forcing the centers to put up that information is forcing them to speak and therefore violating their First Amendment rights. California wanted to require people making pro-life statements to post abortion messages in up to 13 different languages. Even if you just wanted to put up a billboard saying “Choose Life,” you would also have to put up a poster with abortion-related messaging.

The Court found California had overstepped its authority.

Policies like California’s show how extreme the pro-choice movement has become. Thankfully, we have a Court that will protect our right to not be forced to say something we disagree with. You could see the same penchant for respecting speech in the Mansky case earlier this term, where the Court said Minnesota could not ban ideological statements, like “Don’t Tread on Me,” on clothes worn to the polling place.

In the second case, Trump v. Hawaii, the State of Hawaii challenged the Trump Administration's travel ban, which blocks some people from eight countries from coming into the U.S. The reason these eight countries were chosen is they refused to share information with our government to ensure that their travelers are not a threat. The countries are North Korea, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Chad, Iran, Yemen, and Venezuela.

Despite handwringing from the Left, the Court found that this policy was squarely within the powers of the President. The President has the power to ensure our country is safe, and even if some want to try to spin this policy as bigoted, the truth is that it mirrored policies from past administrations, like the Carter Administration, and was obviously constitutional.

The most encouraging takeaway from this term of the Court is that the Court clearly does not seem to mind making the hard decisions that would be unpopular in the media. Ruling for someone who opposes same-sex marriage, as the Court did in the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, is an example doing the right thing even though a swath of big corporations and media coverage will be against you. Defending the Trump Administration’s right to have a reasonable immigration policy is another example. This Court cares about following the law and staying within its designated powers, regardless of what names they get called (or what restaurants they get kicked out of). That’s good for our country and good for the judiciary.

Which brings us to the definition of a “good” Supreme Court. A good court is one that does not bend to what is politically popular or even what the justices think the best policy outcome should be. A good court understands its role, follows the plain text of the law, and doesn’t bend the words of the constitution to fit some desired result.  Trump v. Hawaii provided an example of this approach. The Court knows that the law and constitution provide the President with broad authority in the areas of national security and immigration. It’s not for them to question decisions like the travel ban.

NIFLA and Trump v. Hawaii were close votes—both 5 to 4—so if we want more rulings like this, we need more backup for the five justices who stood for the rule of law. But while we wait for more appointment opportunities for this White House, let’s hope for more Supreme Court terms like this one in the meantime.

The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) won its second Open Meetings Act case in two years in Lauderdale County Chancery court on Friday. The case was filed on behalf of Tommy Williams, a Lauderdale County resident, who challenged the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors for violating open meetings laws. The Lauderdale Supervisors dropped their appeal on Friday, meaning the ruling that they held illegal, closed-door meetings to make decisions about borrowing money through bonds is final.

“This is an important win that should send a message around Mississippi: don’t violate the ethics and open government laws, or responsible citizens and the Mississippi Justice Institute will stand up for their rights and challenge you,” said MJI Director Shadrack White.

Meridian attorney Stephen Wilson and White represented Williams in the case, Thomas E. Williams v. Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors. Williams blew the whistle when Lauderdale Supervisors purposefully met in small groups to avoid creating a quorum. By not creating a quorum at any one meeting, Supervisors believed they could avoid the requirements in the Open Meetings Act that said those meetings had to be open to the public.

“Mississippians deserve transparent government. Citizens have the right to see, in flesh and blood, how their leaders make decisions,” said White. “This case reaffirms that principle.”

“MJI was successful in this case thanks to Tommy’s courage and thanks to a strong precedent set in a previous MJI case on the Open Meetings Act,” added White. Last year, MJI won an Open Meetings Act case involving the City of Columbus at the Mississippi Supreme Court. The case set a critical precedent that politicians cannot hold small meetings for the purpose of sidestepping open meetings laws.

“Meridian attorney Stephen Wilson is a brilliant lawyer and also deserves a great deal of credit for driving this case to completion,” said White.

The Open Meetings Act states that all official public meetings of a government body where a quorum is present should be open to the public, with only a few exceptions. Now courts have bolstered the law with two rulings that say politicians may not pre-arrange smaller meetings with the intent to avoid the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

The Lauderdale Chancery Court’s ruling upholds an initial ruling by the Mississippi Ethics Commission in this case. “The Ethics Commission should be commended as well here,” said White. “They did excellent work uncovering the facts of this case and upholding transparent government.”

In its two year history, MJI has built a track record of success, particularly in transparency and ethics laws cases. MJI has also sued Jackson over its onerous regulations on new taxi businesses, has successfully defended the rights of Mississippi charter school parents in a landmark constitutional case, and has filed a complaint challenging Natchez’s violation of transparency laws.