A state judge in Mississippi has ordered a temporary halt to a controversial new law that would give the majority-white state government greater control over the court system in the majority-Black capital city, Jackson.

The Thursday order by Hinds County Chancellor Dewayne Thomas delays the implementation of the law, HB1020, "until a full hearing is had on the matter and a ruling is issued or until May 14, 2023 at 5:00 p.m., whichever shall occur first."

Judge Thomas agreed with some of the arguments from the law's opponents' in his Thursday order.

"Plaintiffs assert that HB1020 will deprive voters in Hinds County of their constitutional right to elect judges and will create an unconstitutional court under Section 172 of the Mississippi Constitution," he wrote.

"Absent court interference, plaintiffs allege that they will suffer irreparable damage to their constitutional rights. This court finds that the violation of constitutional rights asserted, if proven, would be irreparable harm."

He wrote that the threatened injury to the plaintiffs far outweighs the harm an injunction might do to defendants, and that there's little time pressure, since many of the bill's provisions don't become effective until July 2023 and January 2024.

He also wrote the injunction is in the public interest.

The majority white, Republican-controlled Mississippi legislature had approved HB1020 earlier this year over the vehement objections of Jackson's majority-Black leadership and legislative representatives.

The new law adds four appointed judges to the existing Hinds County circuit court in Jackson, which handles major criminal cases and key civil lawsuits and whose four elected judges are all Black. The head of the state supreme court, who is white, would make the appointments.

The supreme court chief had already named some judges to temporary appointments in Hinds County in recent years, and the new law would greenlight the state to keep temporary judges in place until Dec. 31, 2026.

The ACLU, NAACP and other opponents have argued that such appointments would dilute the power of the elected Black judges, would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and would also violate Mississippi state constitutional provisions that require the election of judges.

HB1020 also creates a new "inferior court" to address crime in an area known as the Capitol Complex Improvement District. The bill expands the district to cover not only the state capitol and the immediate neighborhood around it, but also additional neighborhoods that are home to much of the city's white population.

Republican proponents of the bill had argued that it aimed to reduce a judicial backlog and fight persistent violent crime in the capital city. It comes amid years of political tension between Jackson's majority-Black, majority-Democratic city leadership and the majority-white, majority-Republican legislature that meets in Jackson.

When Gov. Tate Reeves signed the bill on April 21, opponents immediately filed two lawsuits against it: one in state court and one in federal court. A hearing on a motion for a temporary restraining order had been scheduled to take place in federal court Friday, but U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate canceled the hearing because of the state court's ruling the previous day.

The federal lawsuit also challenges another controversial bill, SB 2343, which gives the state police primary jurisdiction in the capital improvement district and secondary jurisdiction throughout the city of Jackson.

State Judge Who Issued The Stay Had Lobbied Against The Bill

During debate on HB1020 earlier this year, Judge Thomas had publicly opposed the bill, as did the Mississippi Conference of Chancery Judges and the four sitting Hinds County Circuit Court judges.

In a February interview with Law360, Judge Thomas said, "I think they're trying to solve a problem with the bill that's going to create a worse problem."

He expressed concern that the bill and the capital improvement district would divert tax funds away from Jackson and that it would divert judicial power from the circuit and chancery courts to an inferior court.

Judge Thomas also raised concerns about the policy-making process during the February interview.

"I used to serve in the Mississippi house for 12 years," he said at the time. "And when we did something this radical, we always had public hearings on it. Call people to testify as to why you need to do it, or why you shouldn't do it. There was never a public hearing on this. There was no input from the Hinds County Chancellors, or the Circuit Court judges. Or, to my knowledge, even the city of Jackson, as to why this bill was necessary."

He said he'd personally lobbied about the bill at the legislature. "I've been down there myself and spoke to them about why I wasn't for the bill," he told Law360 in February. "Since I was a member, I know still a lot of people down there."

In the weeks following the interview, the legislature changed some provisions of the law — for instance, the final version of the bill doesn't divert power from the chancery court.

State Asks Judge For Dismissal

The state government has already argued Judge Thomas' court shouldn't be handling this lawsuit.

"Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed pursuant to [Mississippi Court Rule 12] because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction," the state argued in a Friday motion. Among other things, a chancery court can't invalidate a state supreme court action, the state argued later in the 18-page brief.

The state also argued the court should dismiss the action because the plaintiffs can't show a violation of the Mississippi constitution.

"Nothing in the Mississippi Constitution prohibits the Legislature from authorizing the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court to appoint temporary special circuit judges," the brief says.

"Nor does the state constitution in any way prohibit the creation of inferior courts. To the contrary — it expressly contemplates the creation of such courts, and state law provides the appellate mechanism that plaintiffs erroneously claim is lacking. Most assuredly, plaintiffs cannot show beyond all reasonable doubt that the challenged laws are unconstitutional."

Ann Saunders and other plaintiffs in the state case are represented by Cliff Johnson and Jacob W. Howard at the MacArthur Justice Center at University of Mississippi School of Law, Paloma Wu and Robert B. McDuff of the Mississippi Center for Justice, and by Joshua Tom of the ACLU of Mississippi.

The state of Mississippi is represented by Attorney General Lynn Fitch, Rex M. Shannon III and Gerald L. Kucia of the attorney general's civil litigation division.

The state case is Ann Saunders et al. v. Michael K. Randolph et al., case number 25CH1:23-CV-00421 in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi.

--Editing by Emily Kokoll.