Jackson Free Press

Mississippi pastors, community leaders and a Hattiesburg church have filed a federal lawsuit challenging House Bill 1523, the third legal challenge to the "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act."

The plaintiffs have sued the governor (who recently received a Religious Freedom Award), the attorney general, the executive director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services and the state registrar of vital records, asking the federal court to issue an injunction blocking the bill from becoming state law on July 1.

The lawsuit says that "with the passage and approval of that bill, the Legislature and the Governor breached the separation of church and state, and specifically endorsed certain narrow religious beliefs that condemn same-sex couples who get married, condemn unmarried people who have sexual relations, and condemn transgender people."

The plaintiffs will be represented by Jackson-based lawyer Rob McDuff and the Mississippi Center for Justice.

Read the complaint here. The press release from the MS Center for Justice has been reproduced, verbatim, below:

Ministers, Community Leaders, and Activists File New Lawsuit Challenging House Bill 1523

A group of Mississippi ministers, community leaders, and civic activists, along with a Hattiesburg church, today filed a new lawsuit in federal court in Jackson challenging House Bill 1523. The lawsuit claims the controversial measure violates the principle of the separation of church and state contained in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs, represented by longtime civil rights lawyer Rob McDuff and the Mississippi Center for Justice, are asking the federal court to issue an injunction blocking the bill from taking effect on the scheduled date of July 1.

The lawsuit follows an earlier case filed by the ACLU challenging HB 1523 on different grounds. The ACLU suit also seeks an injunction prior to July 1.

Today’s lawsuit focuses on the language of Section 2 of HB 1523, which reads: “The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that: (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.”

The lawsuit claims that by enacting HB 1523, the Legislature and the Governor “specifically endorsed certain narrow religious beliefs that condemn same-sex couples who get married, condemn unmarried people who have sexual relations, and condemn transgender people.” The lawsuit notes that the bill provides special legal protection exclusively to people holding those beliefs, but not for those who have different beliefs.

“The people bringing this lawsuit, like thousands of people in Mississippi, do not subscribe to the religious views set forth in the bill, and do not believe the government should be interfering in religion by choosing some religious views over others,” McDuff said.

“Ensuring that government maintains neutrality on religious beliefs and respects …

Only once in the history of the FIFA World Cup has more than one nation hosted the tournament. That was the 2002 World Cup, which had joint hosts South Korea and Japan.

That could change with the 2026 World Cup if the joint bid to host from the United States, Mexico and Canada wins. If the bid is successful, this will be the first World Cup that any of these three countries has hosted since the U.S. in 1994.

Mexico hosted the event in 1970 and 1986, with the 1970 tournament still holding fourth place for highest average attendance per match. Canada has never hosted a men’s World Cup but did host the 2015 Women’s World cup.

When the U.S. hosted the event, it set records for the highest average attendance per match and highest total attendance. The U.S.’s tournament only had 24 teams since the current format of 32 teams started with the 1998 World Cup.

Even as the tournament has added more teams and more matches, the U.S.-hosted tournament still is the standard for attendance. Soccer grew leaps and bounds when the U.S. last hosted, and the sport could grow even more if the nation gets another turn at the reins.

However, the 2026 World Cup could end up setting records no matter which country hosts it. The number of teams will jump from 32 to 48, and the number of matches will jump from 60 to 80. It makes sense for more than one country to host a super-sized tournament.

Lone host nations could become harder to find with the amount of teams that will be participating. That’s a bonus for this bid because there are numerous stadiums in all three countries that can hold matches.

Even before these three countries announced their bid, the U.S. seemed to be the frontrunner to host the 2026 tournament. The U.S. lost the 2022 tournament to Qatar under dubious circumstances that ended up changing the way that FIFA votes on World Cups bids.

Under the old format, which started after 1982, an executive committee of about 48 members voted on bids to host the World Cup. The new voting format is actually the old one, which the organization used before 1982, where every member of FIFA votes for a bid.

There are 211 members with the votes allocated as follows: Europe has 55 votes, Africa has 54 votes, Asia has 46 votes, CONCACAF has 35 votes, Oceania has 11 votes, and South America has 10 votes. The idea behind this bid is that the 35 votes of CONCACAF would pull together to host the tournament.

No team from CONCACAF has hosted the tournament since 1994. The other major confederations each have held at least one World Cup since then.

As Russia is hosting the 2018 World Cup and Qatar is hosting the 2022 tournament, neither Europe nor Asia can bid on 2026 due to FIFA rules on hosting. …