Civil Rights Challenge to Flying of Mississippi State Flag Rejected by 5th Circuit
"Plaintiffs may believe that flying the flag in question makes living in the city less desirable, but the complained of action does not plausibly equate to making housing unavailable under the statute," the Fifth Circuit said.
December 05, 2018 at 01:37 PM
3 minute read
A federal appeals court has ruled that a civil rights group cannot sue over a Mississippi city's ordinance requiring officials to fly the state flag—which prominently features the Confederate battle flag as part of its design—over city-owned facilities.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Monday affirmed a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi that dismissed the lawsuit on summary judgment.
U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr., sitting in Gulfport, originally dismissed the lawsuit in June, saying that the civil rights group, the Mississippi Rising Coalition, had no standing to sue the city of Ocean Springs from requiring that the state flag be flown.
Ocean Springs is a city of about 17,000 people near Biloxi, in the southeastern portion of the state.
Mississippi Rising's lawsuit alleged that flying the flag violated the federal Fair Housing Act by, in effect, causing ”racial steering.” The flag, with its Confederate symbol, deterred African-Americans from living in or moving to Ocean Springs, the lawsuit alleged.
In an unsigned opinion, Fifth Circuit Judges Patrick Higginbotham, Jennifer Elrod and Kyle Duncan agreed with Guirola that Mississippi Rising hadn't shown that it or anyone else had actually suffered an injury—which is a requirement for pursuing a violation of the FHA.
“We recently held that exposure to the Mississippi state flag did not constitute an injury sufficient to confer standing for an equal protection claim,” the panel said, citing the Fifth Circuit's 2017 ruling in Moore v. Bryant.
“If exposure to a flag does not injure a plaintiff for equal protection purposes, exposure to the same flag does not injure a plaintiff for FHA purposes either,” the panel said.
Flying the Mississippi state flag “is not a 'discriminatory housing practice' as required by the FHA, and plaintiffs are therefore not 'aggrieved persons' under the statute,” the court said, adding that no one has been accused of refusing to sell homes in Ocean Springs to African-American buyers.
“Plaintiffs may believe that flying the flag in question makes living in the city less desirable, but the complained of action does not plausibly equate to making housing unavailable under the statute,” the judges said.
In one victory for the plaintiffs, the court did refuse to order Mississippi Rising to pay the legal fees the city incurred in fighting the lawsuit.
One of the city's attorneys, Kevin Melchi, said the city was “obviously pleased with the outcome.”
“The lawsuit was without merit from the beginning,” said Melchi, of Dogan & Wilkinson in Pascagoula, Mississippi. “The raising of the flag clearly has nothing to do with the FHA.”
Mississippi Rising's attorney, Carlos Moore of the Tucker Moore Group in Hyattsville, Maryland, didn't return a call seeking comment.
The dispute over flying the flag over city buildings has gone on for more than a year. A city ordinance requires that the state flag be flown over any building owned by the municipality that has a flagpole.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute readThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Appellate Hot List
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in U.S., Other Countries
- 2Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 36th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 4On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 5After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250