A trial court erred in making the State of Tennessee a full party defendant to constitutional litigation challenging a state law that interferes with civilian oversight of police, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled. The ruling is a victory both for Horwitz Law, PLLC client Kimberly Jones-Mbuyi and Horwitz Law, PLLC itself, the two plaintiffs in the litigation and appellants in the interlocutory appeal at issue.
The underlying case involves a challenge to a provision of a recent Tennessee law that concerns local civilian oversight of police. That law generally provides that civilians may obtain review of alleged police misconduct when a local oversight body exists. But it also provides that a complainant loses that right “[i]f the complainant has initiated, threatened, or given notice of the intent to initiate litigation against the local government entity or its employees.” Mrs. Jones-Mbuyi and Horwitz Law, PLLC sued to invalidate the provision, asserting that it violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine by punishing complainants with the loss of a statutory right if they exercise their First Amendment rights.
While that litigation was proceeding, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Attorney General, moved to intervene in the case for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of the challenged statute. Afterward, the trial court judge ordered that the State would be made a full party, even though the State itself had not requested that relief. Mrs. Jones-Mbuyi and Horwitz Law, PLLC then appealed the trial court’s ruling, which the Tennessee Court of Appeals has now vacated.
“Rule 24.04’s only requirement when a lawsuit is filed questioning the validity of a statute and the State has not been named as a party is that ‘the court shall require that notice be given’ to the
Attorney General[,]” the majority opinion explains. “We therefore conclude that the trial court erred by directing that the State had to be made a party defendant in this matter when the State’s
single objective in seeking intervention was to address the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated § 38-8-312. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s May 10, 2024 and June 18, 2024 orders concerning intervention.”
Offering a partial dissent, Judge McBrayer explained that he would have gone even further in ruling for Mrs. Jones-Mbuyi and Horwitz Law, PLLC. “The majority concludes that the State may intervene for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of the statute consistent with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 24; yet it remands for a determination of whether
the State is a necessary party[,]” his dissenting opinion explains. “Because the State is not a necessary party, I would reverse the trial court with instructions to permit the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter to intervene on behalf of the State for the limited purpose of defending the statute’s constitutionality.”
The victory makes twelve straight Tennessee Court of Appeals wins as appellant (and thirteen overall) for the Horwitz Law, PLLC appellate practice team. Selected case documents appear below.
Horwitz Law, PLLC’s Principal Brief: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Jones-Mbuyi-COA-App-Br-Stampfiled-1.pdf
Horwitz Law, PLLC’s Reply Brief: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Jones-Mbuyi-COA-Reply-Br.pdf
Majority Opinion: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%20-%20M2024-00969-COA-R3-CV.pdf
Dissenting Opinion: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Separate%20Opinion%20-%20M2024-00969-COA-R3-CV.pdf
Oral Argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJxlMYhHvus
###
Contact: [email protected]