Mississippi Department of Corrections v. Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center
220 So. 3d 929
| Miss. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2014 the MacArthur Justice Center (Justice Center) requested MDOC records about lethal-injection protocols and chemical suppliers under the Mississippi Public Records Act (MPRA); MDOC produced records with redactions.
- The Justice Center sued (Dec. 2014) for complete disclosure; MDOC counterclaimed asking that supplier identities and execution-team identities be kept confidential or exempt from MPRA.
- The chancery court (Mar. 2015) ordered disclosure, finding the redactions were not covered by MPRA exemptions; MDOC appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
- While the appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Miss. Code § 99-19-51 (2016 and 2017) to exempt from MPRA disclosure the identities of execution-team members, lethal-injection chemical suppliers, and certain witnesses.
- The Supreme Court held that statutory amendments enacted during a pending appeal apply to the case (in absence of a saving clause), vacated the chancery court’s judgment, and rendered judgment for MDOC, concluding the requested information is exempt under the amended § 99-19-51.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Justice Center) | Defendant's Argument (MDOC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 99-19-51’s 2016/2017 amendments apply to this records request filed in 2014 and appealed before the amendments | The MPRA request predates the amendments; the Court should apply the law as it existed when the request/claim accrued and not apply the amendment retroactively | The Legislature amended § 99-19-51 while appeal pending; absent a saving clause, amendments apply to pending cases and exempt the requested identities | The Court applied the pending‑action canon: the amendments apply to this appeal and exempt the information; judgment for MDOC |
| Whether the Justice Center acquired a vested or contractual right to the records by making the request and tendering fees | The request, MDOC’s partial production, and payment perfected a right to the records; the Justice Center relied on that right | Access under MPRA is a public statutory right (not a vested private right); no contract or property right was formed to prevent legislative modification | Court held no vested or contract right existed; MPRA access is a public statutory right subject to legislative exemptions |
| Whether existing MPRA exemptions (law‑enforcement investigatory or confidential commercial information) shield the records from disclosure | Exemption arguments insufficient; chancery court correctly rejected MDOC’s invocation of investigatory and commercial confidentiality exemptions | Disclosure of supplier identity and related details would impede enforcement, endanger suppliers, and jeopardize MDOC’s ability to obtain drugs; such harms support withholding | Majority did not decide MFPA exemption merits because legislative amendment rendered disclosure unnecessary; dissent argued exemptions and other statutory provisions could have supported nondisclosure |
| Whether chancery court abused discretion in awarding statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees | Justice Center sought statutory fees and expenses after winning below | MDOC argued fees were excessive and duplicative | Majority vacated merits (including fee award) when it rendered judgment for MDOC; dissent would have affirmed chancery court’s fee award as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Beatty v. State, 627 So.2d 355 (Miss. 1993) (amendments to statute during pendency of case must be applied when no saving clause exists)
- Musgrove v. Vicksburg & N.R. Co., 50 Miss. 677 (Miss. 1874) (statutory changes during appeal control the decision)
- State ex rel. Pittman v. Ladner, 512 So.2d 1271 (Miss. 1987) (defines vested rights and limits retroactive application of statutes where vested rights exist)
- USPCI of Mississippi, Inc. v. State ex rel. McGowan, 688 So.2d 783 (Miss. 1997) (applies legislative amendments to pending litigation affecting statutory obligations)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (retroactivity framework: distinguish regulating primary conduct from relief ordered at time of decision)
- Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 314 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2002) (applied post‑request FOIA exemption enacted while litigation pending)
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) (addresses role of anesthetic drug in lethal‑injection Eighth Amendment analysis)