The city-state battle over control of the airport board has gone on for 10 years and cost millions in legal fees. Last week’s trial is one step toward resolution, but it can be appealed yet again to the Fifth Circuit.
Jackson’s claims are constitutional. Cities and boards are creatures of the state legislature, and they can dissolve and create them as they choose, so long as the state doesn’t violate its state or federal constitutions. If the city can’t prove constitutional violations, the new state board will prevail.
The city is arguing that the new board violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Equal Protection Clause is a crucial part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ratified in 1868 following the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment’s primary historical purpose was to ensure that newly freed Black Americans received the same legal rights and protections as white citizens.
The amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Judicial interpretation has expanded this clause to include all sorts of racial discrimination.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. discriminatory impact is relevant but generally not sufficient by itself. If a law is "facially neutral" (meaning the text looks colorblind on the surface) but was passed with a discriminatory intent and has a discriminatory impact, it is unconstitutional.
So, the airport trial has been all about proving that the state legislators passed S. B 2162, which created the new board, with racial intent. That has proven to be a difficult task.
City attorneys sought extensive discoveries from a variety of legislators, asking for thousands of texts and emails. This put an onerous burden on many legislators and has not endeared the city to the state legislature. So far, no real smoking gun has emerged.
The legislators argue they had real, non-racial reasons to expand the board. Foremost, the airport is used by the whole state, and its board should reflect that. Second, the airport has not been well maintained. The escalators didn’t run for months, restaurant offerings were slim, flights were limited, bags were lost, property surrounding the airport has stagnated etc.
The airport board bill was first passed during the administration of Tony Yarber. Tensions mounted during the administration of former mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba, when he appointed the first all-black airport board. So, you can argue that Lumumba initiated the racial battle with his all-black appointments.
The whole racial motivation issue is tricky. You could argue that it was pure politics — Lumumba merely appointed a board of all Democrats because Lumumba is a Democrat. How do you know it's race and not party affiliation?
This was the crux of the recent U. S. Supreme Court decision on redistricting, Louisiana v. Callais. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to impose a much higher standard for proving racism as a factor in redistricting. Now mere racially lopsided districts themselves can’t be used to prove racism. You have to find the smoking gun.
Similarly, federal district Judge Carlton Reeves must decide if overt racism was the motivating factor in the legislature’s creation of a new airport board.
Reeves was appointed by President Obama, which indicates he may be sympathetic to the city. Even so, the case must pass muster with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is known for its conservatism and strict statutory interpretation. The city could get a favorable Reeves decision only to lose on appeal at the Fifth.
Then there’s the issue of ownership. How can the state take something that belongs to the city?
This is the tricky part. A new board would not change the ownership of any of the airport property. It would still be owned by the City of Jackson.
While Jackson holds the legal title to the property, the day-to-day operations and leasing rights are managed by the airport board, Jackson Municipal Airport Authority (JMAA). Because the physical assets were funded by Jackson taxpayers and municipal bonds, the city’s federal lawsuit argues that the state's proposed takeover is a direct, unconstitutional seizure of city-owned real estate without just compensation.
Even though Jackson owns the land, Federal Aviation Administration regulations forbid Jackson from getting any money from the airport, so a new board would have no effect, positive or negative, for Jackson taxpayers or city finances.
The existing board was created by the state legislature in 1960. The legislature has the power to pass a new law creating a new board, which it did. Unless the city can prove constitutional violations, the old board will be replaced by the new board.
Of course, back in 1960, there was only Jackson. There was no greater metro area. And the City of Jackson and the state legislature were in sync racially and politically. That has changed. We now have a Democratic city and a Republican state legislature.
The existing board is appointed solely by the Jackson mayor with city council approval. The new board has only two out of nine city appointments.
Then there’s the congressional requirement that the FAA not approve any new airport board if a dispute is still pending. The city will argue that there is still a dispute. The state, if they win, will argue that the courts have issued a final judgment, so the dispute is over.
Tennessee is going through a similar airport board transition. But the Tennessee law applied to all the airport boards, not just one city, so it has succeeded legally and the new state airport boards are taking over. Jackson has used the singling out of the Jackson airport board as proof of discrimination. That also could violate a section of the state constitution.
Charlotte and Atlanta airports are fighting proposed regional boards. New regional boards have succeeded in Detroit, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
What will happen? The state is likely to prevail in the courts, but the city can still fight and delay at the FAA level. The most probable result is some sort of a compromise.
Wouldn’t it have made sense to start the whole process through compromise rather than fight a 10-year legal battle with millions in attorney fees, only to compromise in the end?
