Pardons under fire in Mississippi Supreme Court

February 14, 2012

Mississippi: The Mississippi Supreme Court is deciding the constitutionality of a slew of pardons made by former Governor Haley Barbour as he was leaving office in 2011. Barbour pardoned 215 inmates as he was leaving office. The issue revolves around Article V, Section 124 of the Mississippi Constitution, which states that "no pardon shall be granted until the applicant therefor shall have published for thirty days, in some newspaper in the county where the crime was committed, and in case there be no newspaper published in said county, then in an adjoining county, his petition for pardon, setting forth therein the reasons why such pardon should be granted. [emphasis added]" As it turns out, only 22 of those pardoned met this requirement and published their story in the newspaper. Only 10 pardons were involved in the hearing on Feb. 9, but the outcome is expected to influence the others.

The Supreme Court's two main decisions:

1) Do the courts have the power to review the pardons at all? Pardon power, according to the Constitution, is given exclusively to the Governor. Some are arguing that court review itself is in opposition to the separation of powers.

2) If the court does have the right to review pardons, does the failure to publish newspaper notices as described in Section 124 of the state Constitution automatically invalidate them?

The two sides:

Attorney General Jim Hood: "I believe there’s been a violation of the people’s constitutional rights, and I believe this court has a duty to correct it."

Charles Griffin, Barbour's lawyer: "Thirty days publication is not subject to judicial review."

UPDATE: On March 8, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the pardons, writing that they "may not be set aside or voided by the judicial branch" and that the final decision rested "solely with the governor".