You can tell a lot about someone’s politics given what they might have to say about the conviction of Donald Trump.
 
Anyone telling you that Trump’s conviction is comeuppance for a sordid hush-money scandal, in which he broke the law, probably leans left.
 
Someone explaining that it was all a disgraceful attempt by Joe Biden’s Democrats to stop the 45^th President from being re-elected, is likely to be a conservative.
 
In an increasingly post-religious society, politics has become a substitute belief system for many.  The danger is that we view everything through the prism of politics.

Rather than ask what Trump’s conviction means for your side in the Reds versus Blues battle, perhaps what we ought to reflect on what this might all mean for America. 

For most of human history, the law meant whatever the powerful said it meant.  Anyone who has ever tried to do business in Russia or China knows that’s still the way things are in much of the non-Western world.
 
A system in which the law is elevated above the executive – in which the rule of law has supremacy – is historically unusual.  Indeed, it is largely the creation of people who spoke and wrote in the language in which you are reading this.
 
It was English-speaking civilization that invented the notion that the powerful are constrained by rules, and that the rules should apply to everyone equally.  A straight line runs from Magna Carta at Runnymede to the Founders at Philadelphia.  The US Bill of

Rights of 1789 was preceded by an English Bill of Rights of 1689. 

America has become the most successful society on earth precisely because in this Republic, government doesn’t get to change the rules as it likes.

“Exactly!” the anti-Trumpers will say. “Trump’s conviction is true to that tradition!  Even former Presidents are subject to the same rules as everyone else”.

But is that really so?  In what way has Trump been subjected to the same set of rules?  Surely, those on the right will say, he has been singled out, prosecuted over something essentially trivial?
 
Those that brought the charges, it seems to me, were motivated by politics, rather than justice.
 
Prosecuting political rivals is what they do in Russia, Brazil or Malaysia.  It is awful to see political prosecutions in the United States – and it bodes ill for the future of freedom in this country and around the world. 

Twenty years ago, George Bush’s electoral strategist, Karl Rove, hit upon the idea of using ‘wedge-issues’ to galvanize the conservative base.  At the time, Rove seemed to be remarkably successful.  Republicans won.
 
Two decades on, I wonder if it was partly Rove’s ‘wedge-issue’ approach that provoked the left into doing something similar.  Under Obama, the left became increasingly inflammatory.  Perhaps there is a straight line that runs from the politics of ‘wedge-issues’ in the noughties to the culture wars we see today?
 
Some on the left might be tempted to celebrate the use of lawfare to try to take down a political opponent.  They might want to stop and think first.  It is, I worry, only a question of time before we start to see something similar from the right. 
 
If lawfare becomes part of American politics, what chance is there that the United States remains exceptional compare with all those other less happy republics? 

It is not just the legal process that America needs to de-politicize.  We need to stop making everything a question of where you stand in the culture war.  Your views on Disney or money management, Taylor Swift or Chick-Fil-A should not automatically correlate with the way you vote. 

If it is politics alone that gives you a belief system in life, you are going to end up desperately disappointed with both politics and life.
 
The United States was founded by people that believed that to survive, a Republic needs a moral citizenry.  America needs to believe in something above politics and beyond the next election cycle.

Last year, Mississippi Republicans won an overwhelming majority.  Could 2024 be the year when they use that majority to deliver the kind of big, strategic change our state desperately needs? 
 
Here are a number of reforms that Mississippi conservatives have it in their gift to implement, which would transform the long term prospects of our state for the better.

1. Education Freedom: 

2024 could be the year that we give every family in the state control over their child’s share of education tax dollars, through an Education Freedom Account.  Arkansas passed legislation to do precisely that last year.  Tennessee and Louisiana are poised to do something similar.  Rather than trailing behind, Mississippi lawmakers should take the lead, delivering big, strategic change to improve education in this state, too.   

The Mississippi Center for Public Policy recently held a public rally for education freedom, with Corey DeAngelis and local educators, helping mainstream the idea.  Recent polls now show overwhelming public support.  

• Affordable healthcare: 

Too many families in Mississippi cannot get health coverage.  Rather than hosing federal dollars at the problem, we need to look at what states like Florida are doing to innovate, with alternatives to insurance-based healthcare.  This means ending the restrictive Certificate of Need laws that prevent new low cost health care providers from operating.  It also means allowing nurse practitioners more autonomy.  The Mississippi Center for Public Policy will soon publish a roadmap on how to go about removing CON laws.   

• Tax cuts: 

In 2023 Mississippi had a large state budget surplus.  Rather than wait for politicians to think up new ways to spend that surplus, we need to see tax cuts in 2024.  One option would be a further reduction in the state income tax.  

Our neighboring states are reducing the tax burden on families and businesses.  If we want to reverse the population decline in our state, we need to do so too.

• Abolish DEI (Diversity, Equity & Inclusion): 

In recent months we have seem appalling behaviour by ‘woke’ academics at several leading universities.  It is now clear that DEI is destroying American academia.  So why are public universities in Mississippi still running DEI programs?  The Governor of Oklahoma recently issued an order terminating funding for DEI programs in public universities in that state.  Mississippi needs to stop the rot in public universities and end DEI programs in 2024.

While those are our top four priorities for 2024, here are some other things we would like to see our law makers deliver:

• Women’s Bill of Rights / Parents Bill of Rights:  Early last year, we invited Riley Gaines to speak in Jackson as part of our campaign to mainstream the idea of protecting women’s rights.  We are thrilled to see so many people come out in support of the idea of building on the safeguards already contained within the Mississippi Fairness Act. 

• PERS reform:  The laws of math make the current public employee retirement scheme (PERS) unsustainable.  Mississippi needs reforms so that young people starting work in the public sector have defined contribution, rather than defined benefit, pensions.  Unless we make this change now, our grandchildren will end up with a massive tax bill.  2024 is the year when we need to see sensible changes made to PERS.

• Ballot initiative:  Citizens in our state used to have a right of ballot initiative.  Over a thirty year period, almost 70 initiative attempts to change the state constitution were made, with only three being successful.  A failure to update the rules for triggering such initiatives means that we no longer have this right in practice.  MCPP would like to see the right of ballot initiative restored, allowing citizens to change state law.  

• Young Enterprise Act:  Mississippi ought to do more to encourage young people to become entrepreneurs.  One way to do this could be to exempt minors from having to obtain costly permits and licenses, or collect and remit sales taxes, when they want to run a small business.   A few years ago, such a proposal was considered in the state legislature.  We would love to see it revived. 

If Mississippi conservatives passed these eight or so laws, they would transform our state for the better.  No longer would we be considered a laggard by some, but as a leader.  

The U.S. Supreme Court just finished its term, and the left could not be angrier. Gun rights were upheld when the Court ruled that the government does not get to decide why people can carry guns, religious freedom endured when the Court ruled that a coach has the right to privately pray on the football field, and the ability to protect the right to life was returned to the states when Roe v. Wade was overturned. 

Now, House Democrats have introduced legislation to expand the Court to create a liberal majority. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the Supreme Court “illegitimate.” The call is growing louder to completely abolish the Supreme Court in its entirety. As also shown by the push to abolish the electoral college and the Senate filibuster, when the left does not get its way, its solution is to change the rules to ensure that they do next time. 

However, there is a way to be pro-abortion and anti-Roe or anti-gun but agree with the Court’s pro-second amendment ruling. In fact, some of the justices of the Supreme Court might have just given the states the green light to enact laws with which they personally do not agree. All opinions on abortion, guns, prayer, or any other political issue are irrelevant in deciding a case. What matters is constitutionality. 

Is Mississippi’s abortion ban after 15 weeks constitutional? The Supreme Court ruled that it is in part because the Constitution never mentions abortion. It ruled that New York’s gun law, which required that gun owners prove their reasoning for owning guns, was unconstitutional in part because the Constitution clearly enumerates and protects the right to keep and bear arms. The same can be said about prayer.

Article I of the Constitution gives the legislature the ability to make laws. Because the left cannot sell the public on their radical ideas, they rely on unelected jurists to carry out their agenda for them. That is how the three liberal justices routinely rule. However, Article III of the Constitution lays out clearly that the Supreme Court is meant to interpret the law, not make the law. As then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett said, “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.”  

Along with the federal government, the scope of the Supreme Court has grown too big. It issues national decrees, barring states from making their own laws based on inferred rights found nowhere in the Constitution, such as abortion. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Court has the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, which is called judicial review. This power, when used correctly, safeguards states’ and citizens’ rights from a tyrannical government. When misused, however, it bypasses people and their votes to create de facto legislation. Thankfully, the Court is just now beginning to undue faulty precedent and return power to elected lawmakers and localities. 

If you disagree with a law that does not specifically contradict the Constitution, do not depend on the Supreme Court to make it go away. Instead, vote for whomever most closely reflects your values to the legislative branch of government, the ones who make the law. 

Here are five specific actions Mississippi legislators could take that would cut crime in Jackson.

In the first week of May there were six homicides in Jackson, Mississippi. How many more will we see before the end of the month?

Last year Jackson had the highest homicide rate of any city in America, with 155 homicides. To put that grisly statistic in perspective, that was about the same number of homicides as happened in Atlanta, a city with almost four times the population.

What is more shocking than the murder rate, is the attitude of those that make endless excuses for it.
 
Some officials invoke that catch-all excuse for every failure, Covid. Homicide rates did increase at the same time that there was a pandemic, but correlation is not causation.  It is doubtful that the virus somehow made people more violent. 

Some of the Mississippi media seem desperate to avoid being seen to blame Jackson’s city leadership. Rather like the failure to provide the city with running water, everything but the city leadership is held responsible. Why? It does a disservice to Jackson residents.

Honest reporting should hold to account those making bad public policy choices today, and not insist on looking at everything that happens in Mississippi in 2022 through the prism of a distant past. 
 
There is far too much wishful thinking when it comes to crime. If only, some imply, we had one more rehabilitation program or enacted another bill that purported to help ex-offenders all would be okay. Sadly, good intentions don’t cut crime. Being honest about the causes of crime might.
 
Responsibility for crime lies with criminals. Responsibility for failing to deal with criminals rests with those public officials mandated to run the criminal justice system.
 
Next time there is another killing, Jackson’s leaders will do what they always do. They will emote about it. What we need to hear instead is what they will actually do. 
 
Here are five specific actions they could take that would cut crime in Jackson:  

1. More police: Despite the often heroic efforts of individual law enforcement officers, there are simply not enough of them. 
2. Prosecute: No matter how effective the police are at chasing suspects through the streets, there are serious failings when it comes to pursuing them through the courts. Who in Jackson has not heard stories of suspects being allowed to walk free?
3. Detention: The failure to have enough detention capacity in Hinds County is outrageous. Build it. 
4. Clear the courts: The bureaucratic backlog in the courts is perhaps the single biggest impediment to effective justice. Clear the backlog of cases. If those that administer the court system can’t cope, bring in administrators that can.
5. Work with the state: Every city likes to manage its own affairs. I get that. But the state capital ought to be able to team up with state-wide officials, police forces and prosecutors to tackle a problem that impacts us all. 

We at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy are proud to work in Jackson. Jackson might seem caught in a downward spiral, but every city has the power to regenerate itself. 
 
New York in the early 80s seemed caught in a spiral of decline. But the city revived once it got a grip on crime. The key to Jackson’s future is to get a grip on crime.

When our clients' constitutional rights are being violated and the political branches of government refuse to act, we take their fight to the courts. And we come to win.

In Liberty,

Aaron Rice
Director, Mississippi justice Institute

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Jackson, MS): On Tuesday, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) filed a court document announcing that tomorrow the agency plans to withdraw the emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring private employers to force their employees to undergo vaccination or be subject to constant testing and mask-wearing. This comes after the United States Supreme Court issued an administrative stay temporarily halting enforcement of the mandate for private employers, which had been challenged in court by multiple states and private employers, including Gulf Coast Restaurant Group which is represented by the Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI).

"On January 13, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Vaccination and Testing ETS, finding that challengers were likely to prevail on their claims,” read the court filing. “After evaluating the Court’s decision, OSHA decided to withdraw the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard."

The court filing indicated that OSHA still plans to move forward with the rulemaking process for a separate, non-emergency proposed rule for private employers which could potentially require vaccination or testing for employees.

"We are glad to see that the Biden Administration has finally dropped its unconstitutional vaccine mandate after months of litigation and uncertainty for Mississippi businesses and workers," said MJI Director Aaron Rice. "If the agency includes similarly unconstitutional rules in any future regulations, we stand ready to fight for the rights of Mississippi employees and businesses again."

Attorney General Lynn Fitch represented the State of Mississippi in the lawsuit, which was filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by a coalition of states and private employers. The suit was ultimately consolidated with similar lawsuits from around the nation in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, before being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court following the petitioners’ motions for an emergency administrative stay of the mandate.

"The Mississippi Justice Institute is proud to have represented Gulf Coast Restaurant Group in this litigation, and to have partnered with Attorney General Lynn Fitch to challenge this extraordinary federal overreach," said Rice. "While we and our client are grateful for the development of the COVID vaccines, we could not stand by while the federal government violated the Constitution and infringed on the individual liberties of Mississippi businesses and workers."

The Mississippi Justice Institute is a non-profit, constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

For media inquiries, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Jackson, MS): On Thursday, Federal District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves handed a first-round legal victory to a Jackson physical therapist in his challenge to Mississippi laws that are preventing him from opening up a new home health care business in Jackson. Charles “Butch” Slaughter filed his lawsuit in December 2020, after a 40-year-old moratorium on new home health agencies prevented him from expanding his clinic to offer in-home physical therapy to homebound patients. Even if this ban didn’t exist, he still might not be able to provide in-home services, since his competitors could use Mississippi’s Certificate of Needs (CON) laws to force him to battle them in court over whether the community really needs a new home health agency. The Mississippi Justice Institute, a non-profit, constitutional litigation center and legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, is representing Slaughter.

In his order denying the state’s motion to dismiss the suit, Judge Reeves notes that “It is no secret that significant financial interests are at stake when it comes to CON laws.” Judge Reeves explains that “Rent-seeking businesses make a sort-of ‘extra-legal’ contract with politicians: money and votes for the politicians, regulations that ensure a monopoly for the interest group. Meanwhile, consumers lose out. Without the market competition that normally regulates businesses’ behavior, the monopoly can charge otherwise unsustainably high prices for otherwise unsustainably mediocre products.”

“The home health moratorium and CON program are unconstitutional laws designed to protect health care monopolies from competition,” said MJI Director Aaron Rice. “We are thrilled that the court recognized that the government shouldn’t be in the business of reducing access to health care to line the pockets of powerful industry insiders, especially during a global pandemic.”

Slaughter saw a critical need for Mississippi patients to receive care in their homes, especially during the pandemic when many people are seeking alternatives to nursing homes and other care facilities that have been prone to outbreaks. His dream, though, was ended by the state’s moratorium and CON laws, which say that there is no need for new home health agencies in Mississippi, despite the fact that the number of patients seeking home care in the state has at least tripled while the moratorium has been in place. Rather than encouraging new businesses to respond to this increased demand, Mississippi’s laws allow large health care companies to monopolize home health services in the state.

Numerous studies have shown that CON laws do not reduce health costs and can serve as a barrier to patients getting the care they need. In 2004, the Federal Trade Commission and the United States Department of Justice issued a joint report, concluding, “CON programs are not successful in containing health care costs, and that they pose serious anticompetitive risks that usually outweigh their purported economic benefits.”

“No one should be banned from offering safe, cost-effective, and needed health care services just because other businesses don’t want competition,” said MJI volunteer attorney Seth Robbins. “Health care costs are already out of control and these laws only make that worse. Mississippi’s home health moratorium and CON laws are unconstitutional, and we’re looking forward to proving it at trial.”

For media inquiries, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Today, the United States Supreme Court met for a special session to hear oral arguments concerning the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers, which has been challenged in court by multiple states and private employers, including Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, which is represented by the Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI).

The hearing concerned emergency motions seeking a stay of the vaccine mandate while litigation continues. The mandate is scheduled to take effect on January 10, 2022. 

The mandate requires companies with over 100 employees to force their employees to be vaccinated, or be subject to weekly testing (at the employee’s expense) and constant mask-wearing – on pain of losing their job. Companies can face fines of up to $14,000 per violation for failing to enforce the mandate.

The mandate was initially halted by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a stay against enforcement of the mandate while litigation challenging its legality continued.  However, all lawsuits challenging the mandate were later consolidated before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel issued an opinion revoking the temporary stay. The states and private employers challenging the mandate then sought emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to issue a new stay before the mandate goes into effect on January 10.

"We are very grateful that the U.S. Supreme court has taken the extraordinary step of scheduling a special session to hear these arguments,” said MJI Director Aaron Rice. “We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with us that the mandate is unconstitutional and unlawful and will halt the mandate before it can inflict untold damage on private employers and on our economy."

For media inquiries, please reach out to Stone Clanton, [email protected].