Moore V. Bryant

Prepare a case brief based on on the case given. Use the template (it maybe altered to fit your writing.

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Moore v. Bryant

United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Northern Division

Cause No. 3:16-CV-151-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss. Seo.8, 2016)

Procedural Basis:

• The plaintiff, Carlos Moore is a Grenada African- American attorney who operates his own law firm and represents clients in both the state and federal courts in the entire state of Mississippi.
• The Defendant, Governor Phil, Bryant is sued in his certified capacity as the CEO of the State of Mississippi, who is mandated to oversee the faithful execution of the laws.

Facts:

• Moore argues that the state flag of Mississippi is synonymous to a hateful government speech with a discriminatory intention on African-Americans. He claims that this is violates the Equal protection and Privileges as well as the Immunities Clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.
• He claims, together with other African-Americans residents of the state, to suffer physical and emotional injury as a result of this hate speech. He argues that the hateful speech incites private citizens to act racially violent.
• Moore further argues that the Confederate Emblem is a mark of slavery that is contrary to the Thirteenth Amendment.
• In support of his claims, he cites the June 2015 mass annihilation of nine African Americans at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. He also points out to the November 2015 incident where a man protested the ban to the selling of Confederate-themed merchandise by Wal-Mart in Tupelo. He finally took not of the 2014 hate crime where students from University of Mississippi draped a noose and the former Georgia state flag around the neck of a statue the first African American student of the university.
• The Governor has not been asked to answer to the specific allegations but he has filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the allegations by Moore do not state a credible claim for relief.

Issue:

• The case was filed by the plaintiff to challenge the constitutionality of the flag of the state of Mississippi.

Decision:

• The case is dismissed.
• A separate final judgment will issue.

Analysis:

• After a brief from the two parties, the court establishes that standing is the controlling question and limits its analysis to this issue.
• The court is guided by the requirement for the plaintiff to demonstrate three elements: an injury in fact (Concrete either actual or imminent), connection between the injury and conduct of the defendant and the likelihood that such an injury will find redress in a favorable decision of the court.
• The court established that Moore lacks the standing to claim that he fears for life on account of atrocious incidents cited above. While there were racial overtones in those cases, the perpetrators have been punished and others are facing charges. The court deemed that “an act of racial violence does not establish a constitutionally-recognized injury for anyone who falls in that racial group.” The plaintiff further fails to show imminent injury.
• Moore further fails to show any specific incidents where equal treatment was denied to him from the state flag or the speech it connotes. Without evidence that he has been treated differently, he has no legal injury.
• The arguments by Moore that he feels stress because of the flag, and yet he is willing to experience it for economic reasons do not constitute constitutional claims. He fails to show the part of constitution that gives a legal right to free from anxiety at displays of historical racism.
• The proposed fourth amendment by Moore fails to cure the issue of standing is denied because it would be futile. The motion is denied.
• For the change to the Confederate Emblem, it must have caused a legal injury and since that has not been articulated, the case is dismissed.