Attala County, MS Branch v. Evans, 37 F.4th 1038

Plaintiffs: Attala County NAACP chapter and four Black residents sued Doug Evans (District Attorney, Fifth Circuit, MS) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that Evans’ jury-selection practices discriminate against Black prospective jurors.
Allegations rely on journalistic statistical analysis and the high-profile Curtis Flowers prosecutions, in which courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) found a pattern of striking Black jurors.
Plaintiffs sought forward-looking relief (injunction/declaratory); they did not seek damages.
The district court dismissed under O’Shea abstention; the Fifth Circuit affirmed but did so on Article III standing grounds instead of resolving abstention.
The Fifth Circuit majority held Plaintiffs lacked standing for prospective relief because they failed to show a certainly impending or substantial risk of being unconstitutionally struck (most had never been called for jury service; only one had been struck for a death-penalty stance, not race).
The Attala NAACP chapter likewise lacked associational standing because its members could not demonstrate imminent individualized injury. Judge Costa dissented, arguing the statistical evidence and county summons data made future injury sufficiently probable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing — individual prospective relief	Plaintiffs face imminent threat of being struck by Evans because of race; Flowers and statistical evidence show a systemic pattern	Plaintiffs’ risk is speculative: must show likelihood of being called, struck for race, and a judge failing to remedy it	No standing: threat not "certainly impending" or a substantial risk for each plaintiff
Associational standing — NAACP chapter	Organization can sue for members’ rights; members are eligible jurors and thus injured by discriminatory policy	Members lack individual standing, so association cannot sue derivatively	No associational standing: members cannot show imminent individualized injury
District court abstention (O’Shea/Littleton)	Plaintiffs urged federal adjudication of systemic discrimination preventing jury service	Evans argued abstention required to avoid federal interference with state criminal prosecutions	Fifth Circuit did not resolve abstention; affirmed dismissal on standing instead

Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (1991) (recognizes juror’s right not to be excluded on account of race)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019) (Supreme Court rebuking repeated racial strikes by the prosecutor in multiple trials)
O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (abstention doctrine referenced by district court)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing limits for injunctive relief require imminent, concrete threat)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (Article III requires injuries that are not speculative; skepticism toward chain-of-events standing theories)
Crawford v. Hinds Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 1 F.4th 371 (5th Cir. 2021) (standing where plaintiff had been summoned twice and faced systemic, recurring barrier)
Carter v. Jury Comm’n of Greene Cnty., 396 U.S. 320 (1970) (jurors may challenge discriminatory jury-selection systems)
Northeast Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (standing for parties kept from competing on equal terms by a discriminatory policy)
Society of Separationists, Inc. v. Herman, 959 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1992) (denying standing where future injury was too speculative)