Judge halts Mississippi’s DEI ban

Desmond Milligan · August 19

JACKSON, Miss. (WJTV) – A federal judge ruled in favor of those who are challenging certain provisions of Mississippi’s ban on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.

According to court documents, U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate ruled that House Bill 1193 is at odds with the First and Fourteenth Amendments and that its enforcement would “cause irreparable injury to the named plaintiffs and the classes they represent.” Wingate ordered a preliminary injunction pending the final resolution of the matter.

MS governor sets special election for Clarksdale’s Ward One commissioner

House Bill 1193 bans public schools and colleges from requiring or promoting DEI statements or programs. Gov. Tate Reeves (R-Miss.) signed the bill in April, and it took effect immediately. However, Wingate issued a temporary restraining order on July 20 before issuing the preliminary injunction on August 18.

“We are pleased that this law is preliminarily enjoined,” said Joshua Tom, legal director at the ACLU of Mississippi. “The State’s attempt to impose its preferred views – and ban opposing views – on Mississippi’s public education system is not only bad policy, it’s illegal, as the Court has preliminarily found today.”

According to the ACLU, the broad prohibitions in the bill could have banned discussions of slavery, the Civil War, the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement and discrimination in a wide array of forms.

250818_Dkt-74_Order-Granting-PI Download

“It is an enormous relief that the court has sided with academic freedom, free speech, and due process in its recent decision,” said Deanna Kreisel, Associate Professor of English at the University of Mississippi and a member of the United Campus Workers, one of the plaintiffs in this case. “The fight is not over, but at least for the time being, the students of Mississippi can continue to learn in an environment free of ideological constraints and partisan censorship.”

Attorney Lisa Repetto, who represented the state, argued that the law does not violate free speech rights. She said the law simply allows state government to direct the policies of public schools and universities.

Close

Thanks for signing up!

Watch for us in your inbox.

Subscribe Now