Walter Jones v. The City of Canton, Mississippi, 278 So.3d 1129

Background

Walter Jones was an appointed trustee of the Canton Public School District (five-year term beginning 2016) under Miss. Code Ann. § 37-7-203.
On Feb. 20, 2018 the Canton Board of Aldermen voted to remove Jones at a city meeting, citing alleged unwillingness to serve and failure to keep the City informed; the Board relied on a city ordinance (Canton Code § 2-55) authorizing removal for cause.
The Board did not provide Jones with prior notice of charges or a hearing before removal.
Jones and the school district filed a bill of exceptions in Madison County Circuit Court challenging the removal; the circuit court affirmed the Board’s action.
On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court considered whether the Board had lawful authority to remove a school-district trustee (given state law and the Home Rule statute) and whether Jones was afforded required procedural due process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board had authority to remove a municipal-appointed school trustee	Jones: Removal power for trustees is governed by state law/Constitution and no statute authorizes aldermen to remove trustees; removal only per constitutional/statutory process	City: Home Rule (Miss. Code § 21-17-5) permits municipalities to act on municipal affairs unless inconsistent with state law; absence of an express prohibition permits removal	Held: Board lacked authority—the City ordinance authorizing removal conflicted with the Mississippi Constitution (Art. 6, § 175) and applicable law, so removal was invalid
Whether a city ordinance (Canton Code § 2-55) can supply removal authority inconsistent with state constitutional removal procedure	Jones: Ordinance conflicts with Art. 6, § 175, which provides the exclusive removal method for public officers	City: Home Rule allows municipal ordinances unless inconsistent with state law; omission of removal from exceptions implies authority	Held: Ordinance invalid to the extent it attempts to provide a removal procedure inconsistent with Art. 6, § 175; municipalities cannot override constitutional removal protections
Whether Jones was afforded required procedural due process before removal	Jones: He received no notice of charges, no explanation of evidence, and no opportunity to be heard—violating Loudermill due-process protections	City: (Implicit) Board action was a municipal personnel decision under its ordinance; no pre-removal hearing required under city rules	Held: Removal violated due process—Jones was entitled to notice and a hearing before removal; the Board’s action lacked procedural safeguards

Key Cases Cited

Miss. State Bd. of Health v. Matthews, 74 So. 417 (Miss. 1917) (Section 175 of the Mississippi Constitution provides the exclusive method for removal of public officers)
Lizano v. City of Pass Christian, 50 So. 981 (Miss. 1910) (municipal ordinance providing removal procedure that conflicts with the Constitution is invalid)
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (public employees are entitled to notice of charges, explanation of employer’s evidence, and an opportunity to respond before termination)
State v. McDowell, 71 So. 867 (Miss. 1916) (statutory removal authority must be exercised on charges with notice and an opportunity to be heard)
J & B Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Jackson, Miss., 152 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 1998) (discussing effect of Home Rule amendment eliminating need for explicit legislative authorization for certain municipal ordinances)
Maynard v. City of Tupelo, 691 So. 2d 385 (Miss. 1997) (Home Rule grants municipalities power to adopt ordinances on municipal affairs only if not inconsistent with state law)