Ann Saunders, Sabreen Sharrief, and Dorothy Triplett v. State of Mississippi et al., No. 2023-CA-005
In the final decision on HB 1020, opined by Justice James Maxwell, the Court ruled that while certain provisions were legally valid, the bill did not face complete unconstitutionality. In Saunders et al., the bill was presented to the Court as unconstitutional by creating this system of inferior courts within the Seventh Circuit Court District, and the appointment of these judges infringes on voters’ rights. (Miss. 2023).
HB 1020 was first introduced in the 2023 Regular Session and is a bill that creates statutorily created inferior courts within the Capitol Complex Improvement District (“CCID”) to aid in Seventh Circuit Court District’s judicial backlog and address the growing crime problem throughout the State’s capitol. Petitioners (which we will refer to in the collective of “Saunders”) first brought this action in Hinds Chancery Court seeking a permanent injunction against Chief Justice Mike Randolph and Hinds County Circuit Clerk Zack Wallace but failed in persuading Chancellor Dewayne Thomas, who ultimately dismissed Saunders’ claims. Id. at 4. Saunders now appeals to this Court with the same assertions that the specific sections of the bill are unconstitutional. Id. Upon review, the Court held that Section 4, which creates the inferior court, is constitutional as Article 6, Section 172 of the Mississippi Constitution expressly authorizes the Legislature to enact and enforce any inferior court as needed and confer jurisdiction on that court in any way it sees fit. Id. The Legislature exercised its authority in this matter by creating the inferior court and creating a system similar to a municipal court to serve the CCID. Id. Without this power, the State would be deprived of courts such as county courts, which greatly further the interests of the State.
However, the Court disagreed with Chancellor Thomas when reviewing Section of HB 1020. While Chief Justice Mike Randolph has the authority to appoint special judges in the event of exigent circumstances (such as the COVID-19 pandemic that affected the world in 2020), the Constitution does not confer on him the ability to appoint judges for a specified term within an already established circuit district. Id. Section 4 of HB 1020 essentially creates four additional unelected judgeships within the existing circuit district, which comprises Hinds County. Id. at 23. Though the newly appointed judges would be considered “temporary special circuit judges,” the bill expressly states that they will serve a term of “three and a half years,” which is nearly the same as the term of a typically elected circuit court judge. Id. Though Section 9-1-105(2) does provide Chief Justice Randolph with the authority to appoint judges to address overcrowded dockets or other emergencies, it does not confer on him to appoint these judges for a specified term within an already existing district such that HB 1020 Section 4 is hopefully wishing to surpass. Id. However, the Court declined to set an arbitrary limit on the period a special judge may serve once appointed for an exigent circumstance. Id.
Lastly, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Chief Justice Randolph’s removal in this action as he is protected under the judicial immunity doctrine. Id. at 30. Saunders urged this court to recognize a remedies-based exception to this doctrine in which judges may be sued when prospective injunctions are the only relief sought. Id. Though Saunders cites Pulliam, which the United States Supreme Court held that “judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity,” the Court was unpersuaded by this argument due to the later amended bill, which states that injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory rely was unavailable. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, see also Bauer v. Texas, 341 F. 3d 352, 357 (5h Cir. 2003). However, Saunders is seeking declaratory relief as its counsel admitted at the dismissal hearing their concern lay with the statute. Id. at 31. Therefore, the claims that Saunders set forth were unnecessary as the State has been active and present throughout the litigation of this matter, and Chief Justice Randolph’s involvement was not necessary to resolve the issues. Id. For nearly the same reasons, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Hinds County Circuit Clerk Zack Wallace. Id. at 33.
Justice Kitchens wrote a separate dissenting opinion that touched on the fact that inferior courts are to be procedural mechanisms that are “carved out” of the jurisdiction of a constitutional court with the same or greater jurisdiction than the inferior court. Id. at 35. However, Justice Kitchens asserts that the CCID is attempting to survive under the jurisdiction of the circuit court, though the statutory mechanism that creates the CCID does so in a way that makes it similar to a municipal court. Id. at 36. But it is not in the Court’s jurisdiction to amend the definition of a municipal court, and in reading the statute to construe the CCID to have conferred the jurisdiction, it amounts to a statutory fiction only a clairvoyant could decipher. Id.
In summary, the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Chancellor’s determination of the constitutionality of HB 1020.
Photo credit: Mississippi Free Press AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis; Screencap courtesy Mississippi Supreme Court
Comments