Federal judges appear to side with Mississippi in mental health lawsuit

Oct. 5—JACKSON — Federal judges on Wednesday appeared receptive to Mississippi's argument that the U.S. Department of Justice cannot sue in order to improve the level of care received by people with severe mental illness in the Magnolia State.

Attorneys representing Mississippi and the Justice Department appeared before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit on Wednesday to argue whether Mississippi must heed a lower court ruling intended to bring the state's mental health system into compliance with federal law.

Mississippi's attorneys argued the federal government's actions were "fraught with overreach," while the Justice Department argued that there is ample precedent to show it has the power to enforce the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

A ruling against the federal government could ultimately force the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court and set precedent across the nation.

The Department of Justice sued Mississippi over half a decade ago claiming the state violated federal law by confining people with mental illness in state hospitals instead of providing community-based services.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled in 2019 that the state had violated the ADA by having inadequate resources in Mississippi communities to treat people with mental illnesses.

Evidence showed that people were repeatedly admitted to state hospitals for lengthy periods of time only to later return to the same hospitals with no real long-term improvement.

But Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart argued that since Reeves' ruling, Mississippi has improved its mental health system.

Stewart, who also successfully defended Mississippi's abortion restrictions before the U.S. Supreme Court, argued that limiting the federal government's ability to intervene in these types of suits is important because it can cost states thousands of dollars in litigation fees.

"The state asks the court to hold the United States to account and order them to follow the law," Stewart said.

Judges largely asked the state solicitor general procedural questions about why he believes the Justice Department lacked standing, but some of the justices did indicate some empathy toward people with mental illness.

"There's an argument to be made that these people have difficulty defending their rights," Judge James Ho said. "I guess your argument is that's for Congress to decide?"

"It is, your Honor," Stewart answered.

Anna Baldwin, a DOJ attorney, argued that if the appeals courts erases the federal government's right to intervene, then it would "blow up everything."

Instead, she argued that "it's well established that the government has the authority to enforce the ADA."

A court-appointed monitor has painted a picture of Mississippi's mental health system that differs from the one Stewart portrayed.

Dr. Michael Hogan, the monitor, says Mississippi has only partially complied with the lower court order.

According to Hogan, around 25 people with mental illness each day are sitting in jails until they can receive adequate treatment. He also says that there is a lack of coordination among hospitals and community centers.

The initial basis of the state's appeal to the New Orleans-based appeals court was quite limited.

Judge Reeves at the district level last year entered an order appointing the monitor and requiring Mississippi to comply with the monitor's demands. The state only appealed portions of that court order and asked the appellate court to toss them out.

But the appeal has now largely evolved into a question over whether the Justice Department can bring a suit at all under the ADA.

If the judges ultimately decide the answer is no, such a ruling would create a split with another federal appeals court and potentially force the U.S. Supreme Court to provide the final answer to the question.

In a similar situation in Florida, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled the Justice Department did have a clear right to file a suit under the ADA. Florida appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case.

It's unclear when the judges plan to rule on the case, but the court has an informal rule that it tries to release opinions within 60 days of oral arguments.

taylor.vance@djournal.com

___

(c)2022 the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (Tupelo, Miss.)

Visit the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal (Tupelo, Miss.) at www.djournal.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.