Jackson Free Press

Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) sent a letter to Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security John Kelly today regarding Daniela Vargas, the 22-year old undocumented immigrant detained in Jackson last week. Thompson's letter asks Sec. Kelly to ensure that his department "exercises available discretion and looks upon her case favorably."

Vargas is Thompson's constituent, and the congressman describes her story to Kelly, saying "Daniela is the kind of young person who, as President Trump put it, should be treated with 'great heart.'"

Thompson asks Kelly to release Vargas from detention while her case proceeds.

"I would also ask that any pending application for immigration benefits, including her DACA renewal, be expeditiously reviewed and favorably considered by your Department," Thompson's letter says. "Young people like Daniela are an important part of communities all over this country, and deserve a chance to pursue their American dream."

National law firms and advocacy groups filed a petition for Vargas' release on Monday, asking the U.S. District Court in Louisiana to stay her pending deportation so that the court can consider whether or not Vargas deserves a hearing before an immigration judge--or to be released from ICE's custody altogether.

Vargas is currently held in the LaSalle Immigration Detention Facility in Louisiana.

Read Congressman Thompson's letter here.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves dismissed the ACLU's lawsuit that tried to dismantle House Bill 1523 before it becomes law next week. In his order, Reeves wrote that the ACLU's complaint did not satisfy the criteria for him to issue a preliminary injunction to block HB1523 from becoming law. Reeves wrote that the plaintiffs needed to prove that injury was "imminent" in order for a preliminary injunction to be considered. The plaintiffs, Nykolas Alford and Stephen Thomas are engaged to be married but do not plan to do so for a few years. Reeves said for a threat to be imminent, it "threatens to occur immediately."

"Alford and Thomas’s injury, if one exists, would arise when they apply for a marriage license. But they declare that they will apply for their license sometime within the next three years," Reeves wrote. "That is not imminent. The ACLU has the same problem. If a member of the ACLU intends to enter into a same-sex marriage in 2017, any injury is at least six months away."

Human Rights Campaign state director Rob Hill reiterated that HB1523 is dangerous and hateful legislation, in response to the order.

“H.B. 1523 represents the worst of Mississippi. If allowed to go into effect next week, it will lead to widespread discrimination against LGBTQ Mississippians at work, school and in family life. The business community -- including local and national companies and organizations such as Nissan, General Electric, the Mississippi Economic Council, the Mississippi Manufacturing Association and more -- has roundly condemned this dangerous bill," Hill said in a statement. "It will do harm to our community, our families and our economy and we must not allow it to stand. In the coming weeks, HRC will continue our ongoing efforts to ensure this bill is ultimately struck down or repealed.”

Judge Reeves will hold hearings for the two other lawsuits filed against House Bill 1523 together on Thursday this week. HB1523 will go into effect on July 1 if Reeves does not issue a preliminary injunction blocking it from becoming law.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Gov. Phil Bryant and MDHS Executive Director John Davis' motions to stay the injunction that blocked House Bill 1523 from becoming law. Bryant and Davis asked the court to expedite their appeal, and that application was also denied.

The 5th Circuit did allow the two HB 1523 cases to be consolidated, but the court will not issue a stay on U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves' injunction or expedite the a hearing for the governor's appeal of the bill.

The conservative legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, is providing co-counsel for the governor's appeal in the 5th Circuit. HB 1523 was based, at least in part, on language from a model policy that ADF sent to the governor's office before same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in 2015.

Rob McDuff, one of the lawyers for plaintiffs, called the order a great victory.

"Two and a half months after we filed this challenge to HB 1523, the federal courts once again have held that the bill should not take effect. This is a great victory for the thousands of Mississippians who have opposed this bill in the name of tolerance and fairness and dignity for all," he said in a statement to the Jackson Free Press. "Although the Governor apparently will continue with his appeal, this is an important milestone in the battle against this completely misguided piece of legislation."

“We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit’s summary denial of the governor’s motion and look forward to final resolution of this matter in our favor,” said Beth Orlansky, advocacy director of the Mississippi Center for Justice said in a statement.

Read the motion here. Read more about HB 1523 here.

This post has been updated with statement from the MS Center for Justice and Rob McDuff.

New York-based attorney Roberta Kaplan, who litigated and won the case to end Mississippi's ban on same-sex marriage, sent a letter to Mississippi leaders regarding House Bill 1523 on Monday, Slate reported, saying she and her legal team at Paul, Weiss LLC had "serious concerns" about the bill violating a permanent injunction issued last July in the Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant case.

The letter states that "the July 2015 injunction requires that Mississippi, in accordance with the dictates of the United States Constitution, treat any gay or lesbian couple that seeks to marry the same as any straight couple that seeks to do so." The letter was addressed to Gov. Phil Bryant, Attorney General Jim Hood and Judy Moulder at the State Registrar for Vital Records. Kaplan asks that they ensure that the 2015 injunction is complied with and that those state officers provide them with:

• notices for any individual who has filed recusal notices pursuant to HB 1523
• a full and complete explanation of all steps that each individual seeking recusal (or any person acting on behalf of that individual, including in a supervisory capacity) will take to ensure that gay and lesbian couples are not impeded or delayed when seeking to marry in the relevant county
• whether the individual seeking recusal intends to continue issuing marriage licenses to straight couples, while at the same time refusing to participate in issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples

Kaplan also asks Mississippi leaders to "agree to provide us with this same information in connection with any clerks who seek to recuse themselves in the future within one week after such information becomes available."

In her letter, Kaplan sets a deadline of May 2, 2016, for state officers to comply with their request "either in whole or in part, so we can be in a position to evaluate whether we will need to seek further relief from the Court."

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas’ admitting privileges and surgical-center requirement anti-abortion laws by a vote of 5-3 today. The court found both laws unconstitutional because they do place “undue burden” on women seeking abortion access in the state.

"The record contains sufficient evidence that the admitting-privileges requirement led to the closure of half of Texas’ clinics, or thereabouts," the majority opinion says. "Those closures meant fewer doctors, longer waiting times, and increased crowding. Record evidence also supports the finding that after the admitting-privileges provision went into effect, the 'number of women of reproductive age living in a county . . . more than 150 miles from a provider...'"

In her concurring opinion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, "When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety."

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas criticized the court for tinkering with levels of scrutiny in their ruling.

"If our recent cases illustrate anything, it is how easily the Court tinkers with levels of scrutiny to achieve its desired result," he wrote. "This Term, it is easier for a State to survive strict scrutiny despite discriminating on the basis of race in college admissions than it is for the same State to regulate how abortion doctors and clinics operate under the putatively less stringent undue-burden test."

Mississippi's admitting privileges law, which is still tied up in the Supreme Court could be affected by the ruling. The Center for Reproductive Rights said in a press release that similar laws in Mississippi and Louisiana will be found 'likely unconstitutional.'

"Today’s ruling is entirely consistent with lower court rulings in challenges to similar laws in Mississippi and Louisiana which found the measures likely unconstitutional," the press release states. "The clinics in those states will remain open while the litigation continues."

Mississippi state leaders, who supported a Planned Parenthood Medicaid defunding law this session, voiced their outcry to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision.

"I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today," Gov. Phil Bryant said on Twitter. "This measure is designed to protect the health and safety of women who undergo this potentially dangerous procedure, and physicians who provide abortions should be held to the same standards as physicians who perform other outpatient procedures."

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and House Speaker Philip Gunn agreed with the governor's remarks.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today endangers the lives of women and their unborn children in Mississippi and all across America,” Reeves said in a statement. “States should have the ability to protect their citizens through proper regulation of medical care.”

"I'm disappointed with the decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Gunn in a statement. "The legislation struck down today is designed to protect women and their unborn children. For those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, this ruling is a major setback."

If [the state flag][1] is going to change, lawmakers from either the Senate or House Rules committee will have to pass a bill through in the next 24 hours.