Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in an important First Amendment case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. Mississippi Justice Institute Director Shadrack White partnered with other organizations from around the country to file an amicus brief in the case in favor of the plaintiff.
“This is an important victory for freedom of speech today,” said White. “Conservatives and libertarians should be ecstatic over the recent rulings coming out of our Supreme Court. It was a privilege to be able to file an argument in this case supporting the winning side.”
The Mansky case challenged a Minnesota law that barred apparel that had ideological messages on it in polling places. MJI and other organizations argued that the Minnesota law violated the First Amendment.
“Minnesota tried to argue that this case was about protecting voters in the voting booth, but Minnesota’s law was being enforced in a way that favored some ideologies over others. For example, Minnesota admitted that they would ban shirts from a polling place that had the words ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ or the text of the Second Amendment or ‘All Lives Matter,’ but they would allow shirts with a rainbow flag or shirts that said ‘Parkland Strong.’
“That sort of inconsistent enforcement is exactly why we have the First Amendment: to protect the right of a person to speak even if the government happens to disagree with you or when someone says they’re offended by it,” said White. “You should not be punished for wearing a conservative or libertarian message. Americans should be thankful that this Court takes freedom of speech seriously.”
Click here to read the amicus brief from MJI and its sister organizations.
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court issued perhaps its most important opinion of this term in a case called Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling struck a blow for tolerance in America.
That last sentence will come as a surprise to my liberal friends.
A little background if you haven’t heard of the case: In Masterpiece, the plaintiff was Jack Phillips, an expert cake baker and devout Christian. For years Jack ran his store, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and made elaborate, beautiful cakes for weddings and other special occasions. His cakes are works of art. If you don’t believe me, visit his website, masterpiececakes.com, to see for yourself.
In 2012, two gay customers entered Jack’s store and asked Jack to design and bake a cake for their same-sex wedding. Jack said he would gladly bake a cake for the two of them for any other reason, but his religious convictions prevented him from baking a cake for a gay wedding. The couple then filed a discrimination complaint against Jack, claiming he violated a Colorado law which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jack showed that he had happily served gay customers before, and that he did not refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation, but instead simply refused to participate in a ceremony that conflicted with his faith.
The State of Colorado found Jack in violation of the statute. During the hearing on the matter, Colorado officials compared Jack’s arguments to arguments for slavery and the Holocaust. The government ruled Jack had to reverse his store’s policy, and store employees had to undergo reeducation about the harm they had allegedly caused.
Jack decided he would not be steamrolled, though. He took the matter to court, arguing that Colorado had taken away his First Amendment rights. He endured years of public criticism for standing up for himself and his store. His case eventually wound its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Jack’s favor, 7 to 2.
The Court said Colorado acted in a hostile way during Jack’s hearing. They said Colorado was inconsistent, too. Colorado allowed gay cake bakers, for instance, to deny service to customers who wanted a message on a cake that was hostile to same-sex marriage. But when it came to Jack, Colorado insisted that he make cakes for gay weddings.
The Court made the right call when it ruled in Jack’s favor. The Court prevented a world where a black wedding photographer could be forced to take photos at the wedding of a white supremacist, or a Jewish cake baker could be forced to work for an anti-Semite. Artists shouldn’t be forced to speak messages that conflict with their views.
The case has a long list of other consequences, too, and some of them are local. Mississippi passed a bill not long ago called HB 1523, which protects the religious liberty rights of Mississippians who oppose same-sex marriage. HB 1523 already led to one lawsuit, which was thrown out, and I predict it will generate more litigation. While the Court in Masterpiece did not speak directly to a statute like ours, its statement that “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views” could help the state defend HB 1523.
The far more important consequence, though, is the signal this ruling sends to society. To be sure, Masterpiece involves an emotional issue for many. America is still a nation divided on the question of gay marriage. I have many close friends and even family who disagree with my views on the matter. Those disagreements have taken on an ugly form in the last few years. People of faith who have a particular understanding of marriage are called bigots and publicly shamed.
This volatile disagreement is just as much a product of a cultural divide as it is an ideological one. People feel that entertainers, media personalities, giant corporations (Bud Light even tells me to believe in gay marriage now), and others located in a few, elite zip codes enforce a code of beliefs, and if you violate the code on this issue, you may as well be a defender of Jim Crow. In short, people feel bulldozed over what they believe.
It can be hard to be a person of faith in such an environment. We must show others that a person can believe in traditional marriage and also believe all human beings have dignity and worth. But if you cannot convince them of that, you have to be willing to fight for your views.
For those of us willing to fight, we found help from an unexpected source this week: nine lawyers in robes in Washington, DC.
This column appeared in the Clarion Ledger on June 12, 2018.
Victory for charter schools in Mississippi
Mississippi Justice Institute and other defendants protect constitutionality of charter schools according to trial court
(JACKSON) – Hinds County Chancery Judge Dewayne Thomas ruled today in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of charters schools in Mississippi. Judge Thomas ruled in favor of the charter schools and their parents, and against the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) Director Shadrack White, who represents the parents of charter school students, said, “This is a critical victory for the parents and their children who attend charter schools in Mississippi. Judge Thomas saw that the constitution does not trap my clients in their traditional public schools when public charter schools provide a better option. These parents know what’s best for their children.”
The charter lawsuit turned on whether the Mississippi Constitution allowed funding from state and local governments to be spent at charter schools. “Our case was simple,” said White. “My clients pay taxes, so they should have the right to take that money to a public charter school if that is a better option for their children. These schools are making their lives better. The plaintiffs in this case, however, had an extreme argument: that the funding for charter schools, agricultural schools, some alternative schools, and other types of non-traditional public schools should be barred.”
“As this case marches forward, I am going to continue thinking about all the good that charter schools have done for my clients, like Gladys Overton and her daughter Drew,” said White. “When we started this case, Gladys told us that, in her old school, Drew experienced nonstop bullying and a difficult classroom environment. Drew moved to ReImagine Prep, a charter school in Jackson, and today she is thriving. She was the most improved student in her class last year and, like every other student at ReImagine, is learning computer coding skills to prepare her for the workforce.”
“Students like Drew are who we fight for,” added White.
####
Unanimous Mississippi Supreme Court Decides Columbus Mayor and Council Violated Open Meetings Act
Mississippi Justice Institute calls first-of-its-kind decision a monumental victory
for open and transparent government for all Mississippians
(JACKSON, MISS) – Today, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the Mayor and City Council of Columbus violated the Open Meetings Act when they previously met in prearranged, non-quorum size gatherings to discuss public business, intending to circumvent the Act. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the issue of whether meetings of public officials in less than quorum numbers violate the Open Meetings Act. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.
"This is a huge win for the citizens of Mississippi and for open and accountable government," said Mike Hurst, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute. "People are tired of backroom deals and secret agreements by government officials that affect their lives. The Supreme Court's opinion puts public officials and bureaucrats on notice – you cannot circumvent the law and do the people's business behind closed doors anymore. Today's decision is a monumental victory for transparency in government."
In 2014, the Columbus mayor scheduled multiple meetings with council members to discuss policy issues and determine matters involving economic development projects and renovation of city property. The meetings were not announced or open to the public. At the time, the mayor excluded a Commercial Dispatch reporter from some of these meetings. In December 2014, the Mississippi Ethics Commission held that the mayor and council violated the Open Meetings Act. The mayor and city council appealed the decision to the Lowndes County Chancery Court, which upheld the Ethics Commission's decision. The mayor and city council then appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The original complaint against the Mayor and City Council was filed by Nathan Gregory, who at the time was a reporter for The Commercial Dispatch, a Columbus newspaper. The Commercial Dispatch eventually replaced Gregory as a party in the case. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.
The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled, "The four pairs of subquorum gatherings, along with the fact that they were prearranged, nonsocial, and on the topic of public business, illustrated the City's intent to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. The philosophy and spirit of the Act prohibit the City from intending and attempting to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. Additionally, the plain language of Section 25-41-1 requires the subject gatherings to be open to the public. Thus, the City's failure to hold open gatherings violated the Act."
In concluding, the Supreme Court noted that, "Prearranged, nonsocial gatherings on public business that are held in subquorum groups with the intent to circumvent the Act are required to be open to the public under Section 25-41-1 of the Open Meetings Act. Thus, the trial court correctly found that the City violated the Open Meetings Act."
Peter Imes, General Manager of The Commercial Dispatch said, "The public should have access to its government's decision-making process, and this ruling upholds that idea. It's a win for open government."
Hurst concluded, "Whether raising taxes, spending taxpayer money or issuing regulations that affect people's lives and property, people want to know what their government is doing. This decision clearly tells government officials to follow the law and do public business in the open."
The Mississippi Justice Institute is also representing a local Meridian man against the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors who have committed the same violations of the Open Meetings Act as found illegal in the present case by the Supreme Court. See http://www.msjustice.org/case/lauderdale-open-meetings-act/
The Mississippi Justice Institute was assisted in this appeal by Clay B. Baldwin, Esq. of the Baldwin Law Firm PLLC in Madison, Miss.
The Mississippi Justice Institute is the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. It represents Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Mississippi Justice Institute is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations. To learn more about MJI, visit www.msjustice.org.
--30--
(JACKSON, MISS—FEBRUARY 17) – Today, the Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) filed a complaint with the Mississippi Ethics Commission following a refusal by the Department of Revenue (DOR) to make available public documents related to a voluntary agreement between that agency and the online retailer Amazon. The agreement, as first disclosed in public statements by Department of Revenue officials, appears to provide for Amazon to collect use tax from online purchases from Mississippians and remit those taxes to DOR. DOR officials have publicly spoken of negotiations between the agency and Amazon.
“Mississippi law requires government transparency and accountability. As taxpayers, the public should be allowed to know the details of our state agencies’ agreements and contracts with outside entities – in this case a billion dollar corporation collecting taxes on behalf of the state. These details are particularly important because they involve an issue with current active legislative debate and recently completed but not yet enacted rulemaking by the Department of Revenue. The state is making policy on this issue without revealing public information which could inform the citizens,” said Mike Hurst, director of MJI.
Hurst continued, “The Department of Revenue denied our open records request citing confidentiality of required tax records. But the agreement isn’t a required tax record because this is a voluntary agreement. Under existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Department of Revenue cannot require an out-of-state company with no physical presence in Mississippi to pay a use tax. There is no exemption to Mississippi’s transparency laws which allows the Department of Revenue to deny review of these public records, so we have appealed their refusal to the Ethics Commission,”
Hurst noted several questions the information requested might answer.
- Has the state agency obligated taxpayers to any agreement?
- Did DOR agree with Amazon that, in exchange for voluntarily collecting these use taxes for DOR, DOR would promulgate regulations attempting to codify the application of use taxes to other out-of-state companies?
- Did DOR structure the agreement at Amazon’s request to give Amazon a competitive advantage over competitors?
- Did DOR agree to give Amazon some kind of benefit for voluntarily coming forward and agreeing to collect use taxes for DOR? If so, what are the details of that contract between a state agency and a collection company?
- Did DOR agree to shield third-party sellers on Amazon’s platform from collecting use tax?
You can read MJI's record request here; the DOR's refusal here, and MJI's complaint to the Ethics Commission here.
The Mississippi Justice Institute represents Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened or violated by government actions. It is the legal division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. To learn more about MJI, visit www.msjustice.org.
--30--
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Download the PDF of the Letter
October 27, 2016
Dr. Virginia Young, Superintendent
Newton Municipal School District
205 School Street
Newton, MS 39345
RE: Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion
Dear Dr. Young:
My name is Mike Hurst and I am the Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute ("MJI"). We are a division of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, an independent, non-profit, public policy organization based in Jackson that works to promote and protect the concepts of free markets, limited government, and strong traditional families. MJI's mission is to represent
Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened or violated, and to defend the principles and ideals of MCPP within and throughout the courts.
I read with astonishment the October 13, 2016, letter addressed to you from an out-of-state group called the Freedom From Religion Foundation ("FFRF"), threatening legal consequences for the actions of a high school football coach baptizing one of his players.
The facts as they now stand: Newton High School football coach Ryan Smith engaged in private religious expression outside school hours, after his official duties as a coach had ended, on private property, not during a school-sponsored event, and with other individuals wishing to express their own privately-held religious beliefs. He did not request, encourage, or require anyone, including his players, to attend or participate in this private expression of his and others' religious beliefs. Under these specific circumstances, there was absolutely no constitutional violation by Coach Smith, as he, like all of us, have a First Amendment right under our Federal Constitution and a right under our Mississippi Constitution to freedom of religion.
The allegations by FFRF, taken to their logical conclusion, would prevent any school or government employee from being able to attend a church where a student also attends and prohibit that government employee from ever speaking to students or others at their church about their private religious beliefs. Such allegations are outrageous, ludicrous and in direct contravention of the religious freedoms upon which our country was founded!
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the government from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion of private individuals. U.S. Const., Amend. I. This restriction applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 (1940); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450 (1938). In addition, the Mississippi Constitution states that "the free enjoyment of all religious sentiments and the different modes of worship shall be held sacred." Miss. Const., Art. III, Section 18 (1890). The United States Supreme Court has rejected the notion that public school employees relinquish First Amendment rights by virtue of their government employment. See Tinker v. DesMoines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) ("It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."); Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
Government may not exclude or suppress the speech of private individuals for the singular reason that their speech is religious. See Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995); Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). As the Supreme Court explained in Pinette:
[P]rivate religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. ... Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince.
Pinette, 515 U.S. at 760. While the First Amendment forbids religious activity that is established by the government, it also protects religious activity that is initiated by individuals acting privately. As the Court explained in numerous cases, "there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (plurality op.).
These assaults on our religious freedoms by those with an agenda to dismantle our Constitution and our founding principles are the exact types of cases MJI was created to litigate. Thank you for your courage in the face of such threats to protect everyone's right to express their religious beliefs privately in accordance with our federal and state constitutions.
No one likes a bully, and we will not stand by while some out-of-state group threatens our fellow citizens with legal actions for doing nothing more than exercising one's constitutional rights. The Mississippi Justice Institute stands ready, willing and able to defend the actions of those like you who seek to protect such rights as well as others who simply want to exert their unalienable rights privately, which our state and federal Constitutions were intended to secure.
Sincerely,
Mike Hurst, Director
Mississippi Justice Institute
Mississippi Center for Public Policy