JACKSON, Miss. (WJTV) – A federal judge ruled in favor of those who are challenging certain provisions of Mississippi’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.
According to court documents, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate ruled that House Bill 1193 is at odds with the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that its enforcement would “cause irreparable injury to the named plaintiffs and the classes they represent.” Wingate ordered a preliminary injunction pending the final resolution of the matter.
House Bill 1193 bans public schools and colleges from requiring or promoting DEI statements or programs. Gov. Tate Reeves (R-Miss.) signed the bill in April, and it took effect immediately. However, Wingate issued a temporary restraining order on July 20 before issuing the preliminary injunction on August 18.
“We are pleased that this law is preliminarily enjoined,” said Joshua Tom, legal director at the ACLU of Mississippi. “The State’s attempt to impose its preferred views – and ban opposing views – on Mississippi’s public education system is not only bad policy, it’s illegal, as the Court has preliminarily found today.”
According to the ACLU, the broad prohibitions in the bill could have banned discussions of slavery, the Civil War, the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement and discrimination in a wide array of forms.
“It is an enormous relief that the court has sided with academic freedom, free speech, and due process in its recent decision,” said Deanna Kreisel, Associate Professor of English at the University of Mississippi and a member of the United Campus Workers, one of the plaintiffs in this case. “The fight is not over, but at least for the time being, the students of Mississippi can continue to learn in an environment free of ideological constraints and partisan censorship.”
The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts.
Wingate also granted the plaintiff’s request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff’s lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions.
At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech.
Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered “divisive topics.”
Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
“I think I’m in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that’s very important to me,” Johnson testified. “I feel a bit paralyzed.”
The Mississippi Attorney General’s Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights.
“They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,” said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general’s office.
She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say.
Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs’ “argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.