Midsouth Ass'n of Indep. Sch. v. Parents for Pub. Sch.

384 So.3d 1226

MIDSOUTH ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS, Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration, David McRae, in His Official Capacity as State Treasurer, and Liz Welch, in Her Official Capacity as State Fiscal Officer

v.PARENTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

NO. 2022-SA-01129-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

05/02/2024

HON. CRYSTAL WISE MARTIN, JUDGE

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: BENJAMIN B. MORGAN, M.E. BUCK DOUGHERTY, III, JUSTIN L. MATHENY, Jackson

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: WILL BARDWELL, SARAH GOETZ, JOSHUA TOM, ROBERT B. McDUFF

EN BANC.

CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. This case concerns Senate Bill 2780—establishing the Independent Schools Infrastructure Grant Program—and Senate Bill 3064—allocating funds to the grant program. Because Parents for Public Schools (PPS) has failed to demonstrate an adverse impact sufficient to grant standing, this Court finds that PPS lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. Accordingly, the other issues raised on appeal are moot.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. During the Regular Legislative Session of 2022, the Legislature passed two Senate Bills—2780 and 3064. Both of these bills were signed into law by Governor Reeves. Section twelve of Senate Bill 2780 created the Independent Schools Infrastructure Grant Program Act (ISIGP). ISIGP was to be administered by the Department of Finance (DFA), and it allowed independent schools to "apply for reimbursable grants to make necessary investments in water, wastewater, stormwater, broadband and other eligible infrastructure projects to be funded by the Legislature using Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds made available under the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)." Senate Bill 3064 funded ISIGP with $10 million from the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund.

¶3. On June 15, 2022, Parents for Public Schools (PPS)—a nonprofit organization founded in Jackson to help facilitate the engagement of parents and other community members in the improvement of public schools—filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Hinds County. The complaint named DFA, David McRae—in his official capacity as state treasurer—and Liz Welch—in her official capacity as executive director of DFA—as defendants (collectively, DFA). The complaint alleged that ISIGP violated article 8, section 208, of the Mississippi Constitution and requested injunctive and declaratory relief. PPS asserted associational standing on behalf of its members.

¶4. On June 17, 2022, PPS filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the implementation of Senate Bills 2780 and 3064 until the constitutionality of the laws could be determined. On July 14, 2022, DFA filed an answer to PPS’s complaint. DFA also filed a response in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction on August 4, 2022. A scheduling order was entered on July 21, 2022, consolidating the motion for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the merits to be held on August 23, 2022.

¶5. On August 11, 2022, twelve days before trial, Midsouth Association of Independent Schools (MAIS) filed a motion to intervene in the case. MAIS claimed that it was permitted to intervene as of right under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). MAIS asserted that its interests were not sufficiently defended by DFA. Additionally, MAIS sought to challenge the constitutionality of section 208 under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, an issue not raised by either PPS or DFA. A hearing on the motion to intervene was set for August 23, 2022, the same day as the trial on the merits.

¶6. At the trial, the chancellor denied MAIS’s motion to intervene, finding that the motion was untimely and that intervention would prejudice the existing parties. Furthermore, the chancellor found that MAIS’s challenge to section 208’s constitutionality was irrelevant to the case and that MAIS’s interests were adequately represented by DFA. After denying MAIS’s motion to intervene, the chancellor addressed PPS’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The chancellor found that PPS had established associational standing. The chancellor also found that Senate Bills 2780 and 3064 violated section 208 of the Mississippi Constitution by appropriating public funds to private schools.

¶7. Both DFA and MAIS appealed the judgment of the chancellor.

ISSUES PRESENTED

¶8. The following issues were presented on appeal:

I. Whether PPS has standing to bring suit.

II. Whether Senate Bills 2780 and 3064 are constitutional under section 208 of the Mississippi Constitution.

III. Whether MAIS has a right to intervene.

Because we find the first issue to be dispositive, this Court need not address the second and third issues.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1, 2] ¶9. This Court reviews the question of standing de novo. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Jackson Fed’n of Tchrs., 372 So. 3d 997, 1000 (Miss. 2023). When reviewing a challenge to constitutionality, "[t]his Court ‘adhere[s] to the rule that one who assails a legislative enactment must overcome the strong presumption of validity and such assailant must prove his conclusion affirmatively, and clearly establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Saunders v. State, 371 So. 3d 604, 614 (Miss. 2023) (second alteration in original) (quoting Loden v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 279 So. 2d 636, 640 (Miss. 1973)).

DISCUSSION

[3–5] ¶10. In order to bring suit, a party must establish standing.

Quite simply, the issue adjudicated in a standing case is whether the particular plaintiff had a right to judicial enforcement of a legal duty of the defendant or … whether a party plaintiff in an action for legal relief can show in himself a present, existent actionable title or interest, and demonstrate that this right was complete at the time of the institution of the action.

City of Picayune v. S. Reg’l Corp., 916 So. 2d 510, 526 (Miss. 2005) (citing Am. Book Co. v. Vandiver, 181 Miss. 518, 178 So. 598, 599 (1938)). This Court has recently held that a colorable interest is no longer sufficient to establish standing. Reeves v. Gunn, 307 So. 3d 436, 439 (Miss. 2020), overruling Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So. 2d 998 (Miss. 1995). "However, ‘the traditional articulation of "adverse impact" to describe when a party can assert standing to bring suit’ survives." Butler v. Watson (In re Initiative Measure No. 65), 338 So. 3d 599, 605 (Miss. 2021) (quoting Reeves, 307 So. 3d at 438-39). "For standing, the person(s) aggrieved, or members of the association, whether one or more, should allege an adverse effect different from that of the general public." Belhaven Improvement Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Jackson, 507 So. 2d 41, 47 (Miss. 1987). That being said, we also note that

[i]t is well settled that Mississippi’s standing requirements are quite liberal. This Court has explained that while federal courts adhere to a stringent definition of standing, limited by Art. 3, § 2 of the United States Constitution to a review of actual cases and controversies, the Mississippi Constitution contains no such restrictive language.

Araujo v. Bryant, 283 So. 3d 73, 77 (Miss. 2019) (quoting Davis v. City of Jackson, 240 So. 3d 381, 384 (Miss. 2018)); see also Van Slykc v. Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning, 613 So. 2d 872, 875 (Miss. 1993) ("[W]e have been more permissive in granting standing to parties who seek review of governmental actions." (citing Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning v. Van Slyke, 510 So. 2d 490, 496 (Miss. 1987))).

[6] ¶11. An association may assert standing on behalf of its members by demonstrating that "(1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, (2) the interest it seeks are germane to the organization’s purpose, and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 372 So. 3d at 1002 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miss. Manufactured Hous. Ass'n v. Bd. of Aidermen of the City of Canton, 870 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Miss. 2004)).

¶12. In her order, the chancellor found that PPS had established associational standing. Specifically, the chancellor found that "[n]either [PPS’s] constitutional claim nor its request for injunctive relief require its members to participate in the present case[,]" that PPS was "founded to advocate for public schools and parents of public school students, and so its claim [was] germane to the organization’s purpose" and that PPS and its members would suffer an adverse effect different from that of the general public if the laws were to be implemented.

¶13. DFA argues that the chancellor erred by finding that PPS sufficiently demonstrated an adverse effect and, therefore, PPS failed to satisfy the first prong of associational standing—that its members would have standing to sue in their own right. This Court agrees. In order to establish standing, PPS is required to show that it would suffer an adverse impact different than that likely suffered by the general public. Belhaven Improvement Ass’n, 507 So. 2d at 47. PPS argues two bases for adverse impact—that the funding for private schools provided by ISIGP puts Mississippi public schools at a competitive disadvantage and that PPS members have taxpayer standing. This Court finds that PPS has failed to sufficiently demonstrate an adverse impact that it suffers differently from the general public.

I. Adverse Impact Based on Competitive Advantage

[7] ¶14. PPS asserts that it has associational standing to bring suit because its members would have standing to bring suit in their own right based on the adverse impact suffered due to the competitive advantage that ISIGP offers to private schools. PPS has demonstrated that its members include parents of Mississippi public school children along with teachers and other public school officials. Citing Mississippi’s permissive standing requirements, PPS argues that its members—and therefore PPS itself—suffer the adverse impact of private schools receiving any government...