A recent ruling by a Hinds County Chancery Court judge has affirmed that the Mississippi Legislature is not classified as a public body under the state’s Open Meetings Act. This decision confirms a previous finding from the Mississippi Ethics Commission and dismisses a challenge from the Mississippi Free Press.
The ruling allows the Republican majority in the Mississippi House to continue its practices of conducting meetings without public oversight, enabling legislators to gather in private to strategize initiatives and determine voting strategies. Chancellor J. Dewayne Thomas, who issued the ruling on February 18, explained that while the specific terminology within the Open Meetings Act covered various legislative committees, it did not extend to the Legislature itself as a whole.
The Open Meetings Act emphasizes the importance of transparency in government, stating that pursuing public policy requires discussions to occur in a manner accessible to the public. Despite this, private caucus gatherings of House Republicans serve to consolidate their voting power, permitting them to advance or block legislation without interference.
The Mississippi Free Press faced obstacles in trying to attend a House Republican caucus meeting on March 14, 2022, when they were denied entry by legislative staff. The then-Speaker of the House Philip Gunn, who led the caucus until 2024, indicated that he did not believe these meetings violated the Open Meetings Act.
Afterward, the Mississippi Free Press raised concerns with the Mississippi Ethics Committee, which addresses grievances related to the Open Meetings Act. Despite strong arguments from the executive directors of the Ethics Commission supporting the claim for public access to House GOP caucus meetings, the board ultimately voted against the appeal, reiterating that the Legislature did not qualify as a public entity.
Tom Hood, the executive director of the Ethics Committee, supported the Mississippi Free Press’s position, arguing that policy decisions made by a quorum of the House should indeed be public matters. He dismissed Gunn’s reasoning as flawed and not in keeping with the spirit of transparency intended by the Open Meetings Act.
The Open Meetings Act defines a public body broadly to include various governmental entities, suggesting that the Mississippi Legislature should fall under this definition. On September 11, 2023, legal representation from the Mississippi Center for Justice and the Mississippi Free Press announced intentions to file a lawsuit in Hinds County Chancery Court, aiming to classify all meetings of the House Republican Caucus—including those with a quorum—under the Open Meetings Act.
In their statement, editor and CEO Donna Ladd highlighted the need for the Legislature to recognize itself as a public entity, advocating for transparency comparable to that required of local governance bodies across Mississippi. She expressed that the public deserves access to government proceedings, emphasizing that relegating the Legislature to a lesser standard undermines democratic transparency.
In December 2023, McDuff filed the appeal on behalf of the Mississippi Free Press and the Mississippi Center for Justice. Judge Thomas upheld the notion of closed meetings by interpreting the Act’s language to affirm that referencing standing, interim, or special committees of the Legislature was sufficient, making the inclusion of the Legislature as a whole unnecessary.
As a result of this ruling, the Mississippi House of Representatives is effectively exempt from the regulations of the Open Meetings Act outside of formal sessions required by the state’s Constitution. Judge Thomas confirmed the conclusion that the House does not meet the definition of a “public body” under the Act.
In conversations prior to the current Legislative session, the newly appointed Republican House Speaker Jason White indicated he intends to continue his predecessor’s approach of conducting closed caucus meetings, suggesting that those interested in attending should pursue election as Republicans.
Ladd responded to the ruling, insisting that relentless efforts to promote transparency are critical, even though the current environment may foster continued secrecy among decision-makers. She supported Hood’s assessment that meetings where public policies are discussed should be classified as public business.
“It’s disheartening that the Legislature could evade public scrutiny based on a technical interpretation,” Ladd remarked. “However, the increased awareness around this issue is a significant achievement for advocating transparency and accountability.”
