Federal judge slaps temporary restraining order on Mississippi DEI ban
U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate, a nominee of former President Ronald Reagan, approved the request brought by plaintiffs, including the Mississippi Association of Educators, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mississippi Center for Justice. The order pauses implementation for at least 14 days of a state law known as House Bill 1193, which was approved in April and first took effect July 1.
In his ruling, Wingate cited instances where the law is already having an impact as part of his reason for siding with the plaintiffs.
Faculty members at Jackson State University have been instructed not to discuss gender theory or systemic racism, he wrote as an example.
"Suppressing constitutional speech through vague prohibitions and the specter of financial retribution does not serve the public good – it undermines it," Wingate wrote. "An over-broad, constitutionally borderless law should be the target of a well-aimed injunction to promote, rather than impair, the interests of Mississippi citizens, the integrity of its institutions, and the constitutional principles on which this republic stands."
The legislation bans DEI offices, programs, trainings and statements and prohibits institutions from considering DEI in contracts and their hiring processes. It also prohibits programs or academic courses promoting "divisive concepts," including that one race, sex, color, or national origin is superior to another or that someone is inherently racist or oppressive, consciously or unconsciously, based on those characteristics. Schools or universities may not promote the concept that an individual's moral character is determined by his or her race, sex, color, or national origin or that "meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular class to oppress another class."
The law also bans "concepts promoting transgender ideology, gender-neutral pronouns, deconstruction of heteronormativity, gender theory, sexual privilege or any related formulation."
Institutions found to be in violation of the law could lose state funding.
The judge notes that plaintiffs argue "the law's enforcement mechanism – withdrawal of funds, dissolution of student organizations, and employment consequences – exacerbates its chilling effect."
"The chilling effect is compounded in the academic context, where the fear of losing state funding compels institutions to over-correct in ways that suppress constitutionally protected speech censorship," Wingate wrote.
The order cites affidavits from school officials complaining that "vague prohibitions" under the law resulted in partnerships and programs supporting LGBTQ+ students being abruptly severed. One librarian at Hinds Community College attested she "is uncertain whether promoting material for events like Black History Month or recommending titles related to race, gender, or identity violates the Act."
"In this Court's eye, these accounts appear to reflect a broad, chilling effect across public institutions and community organizations," Wingate wrote. "The affidavits detail not only imminent harm, but a possible widespread suppression of speech, programming, and institutional function. The evidence, at this stage, demonstrates a clear and ongoing deprivation of constitutional rights in a manner not compensable by money damages – thus warranting injunctive relief."
The judge instructed both sides to appear for a hearing on Wednesday. Wingate can decide whether to extend the temporary restraining order by another 14 days.
Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction, which would more permanently block the DEI ban. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Aug. 3.
It was not immediately known if Mississippi would appeal to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Fox News Digital reached out to the Mississippi Attorney General's office, but they did not immediately respond.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
4 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's BLS Firing, Explained
Opinion The president was so disappointed with the latest unemployment numbers that he fired the head of the BLS. How seriously should you take this? Bloomberg Opinion columnist John Authers explains. (Source: Bloomberg)
CBS News
4 minutes ago
- CBS News
Watch Live: Texas Republicans return to Capitol as Democrats likely to remain absent to block redistricting vote
Texas Republicans are returning to the state Capitol this Monday for the House session — likely without Democratic lawmakers who have left the state in a bid to block a vote on a heavily GOP-favored congressional map. Gov. Greg Abbott said he'll begin to remove Democratic lawmakers from office if they don't return after dozens of them fled the state in a last-resort attempt to block redrawn U.S. House maps that President =Trump wants before the 2026 midterm elections, although the legal justification for that is shaky. State House Democrats went to Illinois or New York on Sunday, and Abbott gave them a 24-hour ultimatum to come home ratcheted up a widening fight over congressional maps that began in Texas but has drawn in Democratic governors who have floated the possibility of rushing to redraw their own state's maps in retaliation. Their options, however, are limited. At the center of the escalating impasse is Mr. Trump's pursuit of adding five more GOP-leaning congressional seats in Texas before next year that would bolster his party's chances of preserving its slim U.S. House majority. The new congressional maps drawn by Texas Republicans would create five new Republican-leaning seats. Republicans currently hold 25 of the state's 38 seats. A vote on the proposed maps had been set for Monday in the Texas House of Representatives, but it cannot proceed if the majority of Democratic members deny a quorum by not showing up. After one group of Democrats landed in Chicago on Sunday, they were welcomed by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, but declined to say how long they were prepared to stay out of Texas. "We will do whatever it takes. What that looks like, we don't know," said state Rep. Gene Wu, the Texas House Democratic Caucus leader. But legislative walkouts often only delay passage of a bill, including in 2021 when many of the same Texas House Democrats left the state for 38 days in protest of new voting restrictions. Once they returned, Republicans still wound up passing that measure. Four years later, Abbott is taking a far more aggressive stance and swiftly warning Democrats that he will seek to remove them from office if they are not back when the House reconvenes Monday afternoon. He cited a non-binding 2021 legal opinion issued by Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, which suggested a court could determine that a legislator had forfeited their office. He also suggested the lawmakers may have committed felonies by raising money to help pay for fines they'd face. "This truancy ends now," Abbott said. In response, House Democrats issued a four-word statement: "Come and take it." Lawmakers can't pass bills in the 150-member Texas House without at least two-thirds of them present. Democrats hold 62 of the seats in the majority-Republican chamber and at least 51 left the state, said Josh Rush Nisenson, spokesperson for the House Democratic Caucus. Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows said the chamber would still meet as planned on Monday afternoon. "If a quorum is not present then, to borrow the recent talking points from some of my Democrat colleagues, all options will be on the table. . .," he posted on X. Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, said on X that Democrats who "try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately." A refusal by Texas lawmakers to show up is a civil violation of legislative rules. The Texas Supreme Court held in 2021 that House leaders had the authority to "physically compel the attendance" of missing members, but no Democrats were forcibly brought back to the state after warrants were served that year. Two years later, Republicans pushed through new rules that allow daily fines of $500 for lawmakers who don't show up for work as punishment. The quorum break will also delay votes on flood relief and new warning systems in the wake of last month's catastrophic floods in Texas that killed at least 136 people. Democrats had called for votes on the flooding response before taking up redistricting and have criticized Republicans for not doing so.
CNN
4 minutes ago
- CNN
Victim in Epstein case decries ‘political warfare' in effort to release grand jury transcripts
Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink Follow Two victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse have filed letters to the court condemning the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and cited the lack of respect they feel has been showed toward them by President Donald Trump and his administration. Both of the victims remained anonymous in their writings sent on Monday, with one calling the latest handling of the so-called Epstein Files 'political warfare.' 'Dear United States, I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole 'Epstein Files' with more respect towards and for the victims. I am not some pawn in your political warfare. What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely,' one of the victims wrote. Another victim argued that priority has only been on protecting 'wealthy men.' '(I) feel like the DOJ's and FBI's priority is protecting the 'third-party', the wealthy men by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims, 'know who they are,'' one of the victims wrote. While neither letter outwardly requests federal Judge Richard Berman in New York to keep the transcripts under seal, both strongly urge him to take all necessary precautions in concealing victims' identities. One of the victims suggested that a third party review the release of the documents to ensure that no information related to the victims is revealed. The other victim told the judge that it is an 'upmost priority' for any information regarding identify of the victims be redacted. Both emotional letters submitted to the judge showed clear frustration towards the administration's handling of the files. 'I appreciate your time reading my short thoughts and feeling and my anxiety and frustration is NOT aimed at you, obviously. It is aimed at the very government here, the ones asking to release these transcripts, exhibits, etc., of which the victims are not privy to while they have concluded that there is nothing more to see on the files they hold. Yet no one has seen them, but them,' one of the letters read. 'I am beside myself.' Victims in the case were asked to respond to the government's request to release grand jury transcripts by August 5.
