Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 69 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al.,
Case No.
Plaintiffs, 3:23-cv-272-HTW-LGI

and District Judge Wingate

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

LYNN FITCH, in her official capacity as Attorney

General of the State of Mississippi, and STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI, et al.,

Defendants.

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO INTERVENE

The United States, pursuant to Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully

moves the Court for leave to intervene in this action and to file the attached Complaint in

Intervention.

As grounds for its motion to intervene, the United States asserts the following facts,

which are more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law:

1. On April 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit challenging the enactment of

Mississippi House Bill 1020 (“H.B. 1020”) and Senate Bill 2343 (“S.B. 2343”). Section 1 of

H.B. 1020 requires the appointment of four new judges to the Seventh Circuit Court within

fifteen days after passage of the act. Section 8 expands the boundaries of the Capitol Complex

Improvement District (“CCID”) as of July 1, 2024. Section 4 creates a new “inferior” municipal

court with jurisdiction over the new CCID, and allows for the appointment of two prosecutors,

1
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 69 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 5

two public defenders, and one judge. Among other things, S.B. 2343 expands the jurisdiction

and power of the state-run Capitol Police force.

2. The existing Plaintiffs in this action include the NAACP, the Mississippi

NAACP, and the Jackson NAACP as well as certain individual Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that

H.B. 1020 and S.B. 2343 discriminate on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

3. The United States seeks to intervene to bring claims against Lynn Fitch, in her

official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, who is an existing defendant in

the present lawsuit. The United States also seeks to bring claims against the State of Mississippi.

4. The United States seeks to intervene to challenge certain provisions of H.B. 1020.

The United States does not seek to challenge S.B. 2343.

5. Rule 24(a)(1) provides that, on timely motion, a court must permit anyone to

intervene who “is given an unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute.”

6. Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, grants the United States

an unconditional right to intervene in cases seeking relief from the alleged denial of equal

protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on

account of race, if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance.

42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2.

7. The United States’ Complaint in Intervention alleges that H.B. 1020 violates the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on account of race.

8. The Attorney General has certified that this is a case of general public importance.

That Certificate of Public Importance is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

2
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 69 Filed 07/12/23 Page 3 of 5

9. Alternatively, Rule 24(b) provides for permissive intervention upon a timely

motion when a potential party has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common

question of law or fact, and when intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication

of the original parties’ rights. The United States has satisfied the requirements for permissive

intervention here.

10. The United States’ Complaint in Intervention is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

11. Counsel for the United States has conferred with Counsel for the NAACP

Plaintiffs in Case No. 3:23-cv-272, who advise that they do not oppose intervention by the

United States, and conferred with Counsel for the JXN Undivided Coalition Plaintiffs in Case

No. 3:23-cv-351, who advise that they do not oppose intervention by the United States if the

NAACP Plaintiffs do not oppose intervention. Counsel for the United States has also conferred

with the Mississippi Attorney General’s office, counsel for the State of Mississippi and the

Mississippi Attorney General, who indicated that office would need to review the motion to

intervene and proposed complaint by the United States before stating a position.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion to

intervene in this action. In addition to the above-referenced exhibits, the United States also

submits an accompanying memorandum in support of this motion.

Dated: July 12, 2023

3
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 69 Filed 07/12/23 Page 4 of 5
Respectfully submitted,
DARREN J. LAMARCA
United States Attorney
Southern District of Mississippi
/s/ Angela Givens Williams
ANGELA GIVENS WILLIAMS (#102469)
MITZI DEASE PAIGE (#6014)
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
501 E. Court St.
Suite 4.430
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: (601) 965-4480
Angela.Williams3@usdoj.gov
Mitzi.Paige@usdoj.gov
4
KRISTEN CLARKE
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR. (AL 6671R63T)
JOHN A. RUSS IV (CA 192471)
VICTOR J. WILLIAMSON (DC 495783)
J. ERIC RICH (MD 0012130218)
KAITLIN TOYAMA (CA 318993)
JOHN POWERS (DC 1024831)
ROBERT WEINER (DC 298133)
Attorneys
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW – 4CON
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone: (800) 253-3931
chris.herren@usdoj.gov
john.russ@usdoj.gov
j.rich@usdoj.gov
victor.williamson@usdoj.gov
kaitlin.toyama@usdoj.gov
john.powers@usdoj.gov
robert.weiner@usdoj.gov
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 69 Filed 07/12/23 Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 12, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to counsel of

record.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Angela Givens Williams

Angela Givens Williams
Assistant U.S. Attorney

5
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al.;
Case No.
Plaintiffs, 3:23-cv-272-HTW-LGI

and District Judge Wingate

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Proposed Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

LYNN FITCH, in her official capacity as Attorney

General of the State of Mississippi; and STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO

INTERVENE

Under Rule 24, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States respectfully submits

this brief in support of its motion to intervene in this lawsuit as Plaintiff-Intervenor.

Rule 24 provides for intervention either as of right or by permission. Here, the United

States has a statutory right to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1) and Section 902 of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Section 902 grants the United States an unconditional right to

intervene in certain cases seeking relief from the alleged denial of equal protection of the laws

under the Fourteenth Amendment if the Attorney General certifies that the case is one of general

public importance. 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2.

For the reasons below, the Court should grant the United States’ motion to intervene.

1
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 8

BACKGROUND

In 2017, Mississippi created the Capitol Complex Improvement District (“CCID”). The

CCID was defined as an 8.7 square mile jurisdiction within the city of Jackson. The CCID’s

purpose was to establish funding for and administration of state-operated development projects

within Jackson. The CCID, Jackson, and Hinds County are all majority-Black jurisdictions.

On April 21, 2023, Mississippi enacted H.B. 1020 and S.B. 2343. Both laws are targeted

specifically towards the CCID, Jackson, and Hinds County. S.B. 2343 expands the CCID from

an 8.7 square mile jurisdiction to a 17.5 square mile jurisdiction. It also allows for the Capitol

Police force—a state-run law enforcement agency—to exercise primary jurisdiction over the

CCID and to share jurisdiction over the rest of Jackson with the Jackson Police Department.

H.B. 1020 creates a new court within the CCID known as the “CCID inferior court.” The

law gives the CCID inferior court authority to hear and determine “all preliminary matters and

criminal matters authorized by law for municipal courts that accrue or occur, in whole or in part,

within the boundaries of the Capitol Complex Improvement District.” The CCID inferior court

is overseen by a state-appointed judge, and criminal cases in the CCID inferior court are brought

by two state-appointed prosecutors.

H.B. 1020 also makes changes to the existing Seventh Circuit Court District, a

Mississippi judicial district whose boundaries are coterminous with Hinds County. The Seventh

Circuit Court District, like all other circuit court districts in the state, is currently overseen by a

small number of elected judges. H.B. 1020 gives the Chief Justice of the Mississippi Supreme

Court the power to appoint four new “temporary special circuit judges” to the Seventh Circuit

Court District. These judges need not be residents of Hinds County.

2
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 3 of 8

The NAACP, its local affiliates, and several named individuals (collectively “private

Plaintiffs”) initiated this lawsuit on April 21, 2023, against Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves,

Mississippi Commissioner of Public Safety Sean Tindell, Chief of Capitol Police Bo Luckey,

Mississippi Chief Justice Michael Randolph, and Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch.

Private Plaintiffs allege that the four key provisions of H.B. 1020 and S.B. 2343—i.e., the

expansion of the Capitol Police, the appointment of new circuit court judges, the creation of the

CCID inferior court, and the appointment of CCID prosecutors—each violate the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular,

private Plaintiffs argue that these provisions of H.B. 1020 and S.B. 2343 were passed with

discriminatory intent, and that the intended effect of these laws is to decrease the power of Black

Hinds County residents to elect and oversee their own local officials.

The United States’ Complaint in Intervention challenges three of the same provisions,

which all come from H.B. 1020: the appointment of the CCID judge, the appointment of CCID

prosecutors, and the appointment of four new judges to the circuit court. The United States

challenges these provisions on grounds that they discriminate on the basis of race in violation of

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States’ Complaint in

Intervention brings these claims against Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch—who is

already a defendant in the present lawsuit—and against the State of Mississippi. The United

States does not seek to bring claims regarding S.B. 2343.

3
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 4 of 8

THE UNITED STATES HAS A RIGHT TO INTERVENE

UNDER RULE 24(a)(1)

The United States’ motion to intervene should be granted under Rule 24(a)(1) because

the United States satisfies the requirements for intervention as of right. 1 Under that rule, on

timely motion, a court must permit anyone to intervene who “is given an unconditional right to

intervene by a federal statute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). Where an intervenor timely files a

motion to intervene and has an unconditional statutory right to intervene in the lawsuit, a court

has no discretion to deny the intervention. See Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. STME, LLC,

938 F.3d 1305, 1322 (11th Cir. 2019); see also L.W. ex rel. Williams v. Skrmetti, No. 3:23-CV-

376, 2023 WL 3513302, at *1-3 (M.D. Tenn. May 16, 2023) (granting motion to intervene in its

entirety because motion was timely and United States has a “widely recognized . . .

unconditional right to intervene” under Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

Here, the United States has an unconditional statutory right to intervene in litigation like

this under a federal statute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, grants the United States an unconditional right to intervene in certain cases

seeking relief from the alleged denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth

Amendment if the Attorney General certifies that the case is one of general public importance.

42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2. Section 902 provides that:

Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking
relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national
origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene
in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case
is of general public importance. In such action the United States shall be entitled to
the same relief as if it had instituted the action.

1
The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that Rule 24 is to be liberally construed in favor of the
potential intervenors. See, e.g., Rotstain v. Mendez, 986 F.3d 931, 937 (5th Cir. 2021); Brumfield
v. Dodd, 749 F.3d 339, 341 (5th Cir. 2014).
4
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 5 of 8

42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2.

Numerous courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized that this statute entitles

the United States to intervene in equal protection cases. See, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch.

Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 247-48 (2009) (acknowledging that Section 902 allows the Attorney

General to intervene in private equal protection suits); Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler,

427 U.S. 424, 430-31 (1976) (Section 902 authorizes the United States to continue as a party

plaintiff despite the disappearance of the original plaintiffs). Further, when intervening under

Section 902, the United States is permitted to seek relief that is independent from the relief

sought by original plaintiffs, including by seeking relief from new State defendants. See, e.g.,

Coffey v. State Educ. Fin. Comm’n., 296 F. Supp. 1389, 1390 (S.D. Miss. 1969) (Section 902

intervention allowing United States to seek independent relief against the State of Mississippi);

Spangler v. U.S., 415 F.2d 1242, 1244-45 (9th Cir. 1969) (Section 902 intervention allowing

United States to raise new claims not brought by original plaintiffs); Sanders v. Ellington, 288 F.

Supp. 937, 942 (M.D. Tenn. 1968) (finding Section 902 allowed United States to intervene to

bring significantly broader equal protection claims than private plaintiffs had originally alleged).

Section 902 applies here. The United States alleges that H.B. 1020 discriminates on the

basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution. And, as required by Section 902, the Attorney General has certified that this

is a case of public importance. U.S. Mot. to Intervene, Ex. 1.

The United States’ motion is timely. The Fifth Circuit considers four factors to

determine whether a motion to intervene has been timely filed: (1) the length of time during

which the intervenor actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case

before it petitioned for leave to intervene; (2) the extent of the prejudice that existing parties to

5
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 6 of 8

the litigation may suffer as a result of the intervenor’s failure to apply for intervention as soon as

it knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case; (3) the extent of the prejudice

that the intervenor may suffer if intervention is denied; and (4) the existence of any unusual

circumstances that militate against or in favor of a determination that the application is timely.

Ford v. City of Huntsville, 242 F.3d 235, 239 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d

1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994)). “The analysis is contextual; absolute measures of timeliness should

be ignored.” Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1205. Further, the timeliness requirement “is not a tool of

retribution to punish the tardy would-be intervenor, but rather a guard against prejudicing the

original parties by the failure to apply sooner. Federal courts should allow intervention ‘where

no one would be hurt and greater justice could be attained.’” Id. (quoting McDonald v. E.J.

Lavino Co., 430 F.2d 1065, 1074 (5th Cir. 1970)).

Here, the United States satisfies all of the factors to make its motion for intervention

timely. First, the United States is moving to intervene less than three months after H.B. 1020

was signed into law and private Plaintiffs filed their suit. See, e.g., Carter v. Sch. Bd. of W.

Feliciana Parish, 569 F. Supp. 568, 570-71 (M.D. La. 1983) (finding intervention pursuant to

Section 902 was proper even where action had been pending for more than eighteen years

without earlier intervention). This motion to intervene comes early in the litigation and the

United States does not seek to delay or reconsider phases of the litigation that had already

concluded. See Wal-Mart Stores v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 834 F.3d 562, 565-66 (5th

Cir. 2016). Second, the existing parties to the litigation will not suffer any prejudice if the

United States’ motion is granted, and granting intervention will not have any negative effect on

the proceedings. Third, the United States will suffer prejudice if its motion to intervene is

denied. This case implicates the United States’ ability to protect its sovereign interest in ensuring

6
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 7 of 8

that persons of all races are afforded equal protection of the laws in accordance with the

Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Granting intervention here will also conserve

resources and best serve judicial economy—it will ensure that the United States’ interests are

protected without requiring the filing of a separate lawsuit that would delay the adjudication of

this matter and, ultimately, the constitutionality of H.B. 1020. And fourth, there are no unusual

circumstances that militate against granting intervention.

Thus, the United States has met the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule

24(a)(1). 2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant the United States’ motion to intervene

and order its intervention in this action.

2
In the alternative, the Court should permit the United States to intervene in this litigation
because the requirements for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1)(B) are met here. First,
the United States’ putative claims share common questions of law and fact with the existing
Plaintiffs’ claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Both Plaintiffs and the United States claim
violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and these claims are
based on the same facts—both lawsuits challenge Mississippi’s changes to the judicial system in
Hinds County. Second, because the United States’ motion is timely, intervention will not unduly
delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights. Id. at (b)(3).

7
 Case 3:23-cv-00272-HTW-LGI Document 70 Filed 07/12/23 Page 8 of 8
Dated: July 12, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
DARREN J. LAMARCA
United States Attorney
Southern District of Mississippi
/s/ Angela Givens Williams
ANGELA GIVENS WILLIAMS (#102469)
MITZI DEASE PAIGE (#6014)
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
501 E. Court St.
Suite 4.430
Jackson, MS 39201
Phone: (601) 965-4480
Angela.Williams3@usdoj.gov
Mitzi.Paige@usdoj.gov
KRISTEN CLARKE
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
T. CHRISTIAN HERREN, JR. (AL 6671R63T)
JOHN A. RUSS IV (CA 192471)
VICTOR J. WILLIAMSON (DC 495783)
J. ERIC RICH (MD 0012130218)
KAITLIN TOYAMA (CA 318993)
JOHN POWERS (DC 1024831)
ROBERT WEINER (DC 298133)
Attorneys
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW – 4CON
Washington, D.C. 20530
Phone: (800) 253-3931
chris.herren@usdoj.gov
john.russ@usdoj.gov
j.rich@usdoj.gov
victor.williamson@usdoj.gov
kaitlin.toyama@usdoj.gov
john.powers@usdoj.gov
robert.weiner@usdoj.gov