STARKVILLE — Federal courts are dismantling Mississippi’s legislative efforts to work around prior Supreme Court decisions on abortion rights and LGBTQ rights about as fast as state lawmakers can approve the legislation.
U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves has now formally ruled from the bench what most observers of the legal process in the state had long predicted – that Mississippi public officials cannot use their own religious beliefs as recuse themselves from performing official duties of their office.
Reeves summed up his ruling succinctly: “Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with Obergefell, of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit – by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example. But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after every legislative session.”
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in the 2015 landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry that is guaranteed by both the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
That decision made same-sex marriage legal in Mississippi — or at least impeded Mississippi from violating the federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. A few days after that ruling was announced, Reeves ordered an end to enforcement of the state’s same-sex marriage ban.
In that sequence of events, HB 1523 became the legislative end run around the Obergefell decision. HB 1523, formally known as the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, was offered and adopted by supporters who claimed it was written and adopted to protect the rights of people with a “sincerely held religious belief” or a “moral conviction” against same-sex marriage – including circuit clerks charged with issuing marriage licenses – from punishment for denying services to same-sex couples.
Opponents said HB 1523 codifies a path to abject discrimination in Mississippi against people engaging in what is clearly constitutionally protected activities under the cloak of religion – and that adoption of such laws at the state level have no impact whatsoever on the constitutional rights that are in conflict with them. Reeves, as expected, agreed.
There was also no small legal question about the how the state defines “sincerely held religious belief” and “moral conviction” in this context. And how does the new law contemplate the rights of people outside the Judeo-Christian faith to their “sincerely held religious belief” or “moral conviction” that may well run far afield of the vast majority of Mississippians?
The Reeves ruling held that from a purely legal standpoint, it’s no longer a question of whether you approve or disapprove or whether those activities and choices in any way offend your religious beliefs (or the lack of them) or whether they match your political/philosophical beliefs on the same topics.
The Mississippi federal judge’s ruling reiterates that he same-sex marriage ship has sailed under federal law and that federal law supersedes state law in this instance. Clearly, House Bill 1523 as a means to work around the federal Obergefell decision at the state level isn’t passing muster in the federal courts.
The mood of the Supreme Court on reproductive rights also came into sharper focus this week. The court struck down the regulation of abortion clinics in Texas on Monday in the court’s biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century in a 5-3 decision, with justices ruling that the regulations were only a hidden attempt to make it harder for women to get abortions in the Lone Star state.
The court then rejected appeals from Mississippi and Wisconsin on similar regulations on abortion clinics that were struck down by lower courts. The regulations required doctors who performed abortions at clinics in the two states to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Reeves has additional matters to decide regarding HB 1523, but it’s clear that the legislation faces tough constitutional scrutiny and that the federal courts are singularly unsympathetic to the aim of the legislation.
(Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.)