U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate smiles on Aug. 19, 2022, in Jackson, Miss. Wingate ruled Thursday, June 1, 2023, that the Mississippi chief justice cannot be a defendant in a lawsuit that challenges a state law dealing with appointed judges. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)
- Among the errors noted in Judge Henry Wingate’s order include naming incorrect plaintiffs and defendants and reciting allegations that do not appear in the complaint.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate temporarily blocked Mississippi’s anti-DEI law passed by the Legislature this year as part of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Mississippi and the Mississippi Center for Justice in June.
READ MORE: Judge Wingate temporarily blocks anti-DEI law in Mississippi
However, after Wingate entered the order both sides of the legal challenge noticed significant factual errors in the federal judge’s ruling.
Two days later, Mississippi Attorney General’s office defending the new law, in consultation with the plaintiffs, filed a motion to clarify or correct the Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order issued by Wingate.
Judge Wingate amended his original order the following day and then removed the initial ruling from docket, back dating the amended order as if it were the original ruling.
The Attorney General notes in their motion to correct that Wingate’s order identifies incorrect plaintiffs and defendants. Wingate also recites allegations that do not appear in the operative complaint and/or are not supported by record evidence while identifying as quoted excerpts certain terms that do not appear in the language of the law. The Attorney General’s office also said Wingate’s order relies on the purported declaration testimony of four individuals whose declarations do not appear in the record for this case.
You can read the original order here. The Attorney General’s motion to clarify is shown below.
The new law in question, as it was described by lawmakers, prevents public K-12 and higher education institutions from utilizing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices when making decisions concerning school employment, academic opportunities, and student engagement. Such decisions are to be based on an individual’s merit and qualifications rather than a person’s race, color, sexual orientation, or gender. The law passed through both bodies in the State Capitol and then received the governor’s signature in April.
The plaintiffs content that the law violates the 1st and 14th Amendments of the Constitution.
Frank Corder
