Opinion ID: 1094077
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Constitutionality of the Public Trust Tidelands Act

Text: ¶ 31. The question of the constitutionality of the Public Trust Tidelands Act was first raised by Columbia in their Motion to Reconsider, For a New Trial or for Entry of Judgment For the Plaintiffs as a Matter of Law. As the basis for this challenge, Columbia alleges that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. In reliance of their argument, Columbia references ¶ 39 of the chancellor's order, which states: Certainly, Columbia should be upset. There are no set rules to follow. A citizen is left without a clear indication of the process, of the requirements, and of how to proceed. There is no procedure for an internal hearing and no clear avenue of appeal. Unfortunately, this is the bare-bones system set forth by the legislation. Certain, the Secretary of State could establish rules which would alleviate these problems, but nothing requires him to do so. ¶ 32. Columbia argues that Miss.Code Ann. § 29-1-107(2) (Rev.2000) is unconstitutional because it is vague and that an ordinary person of common intelligence upon reading the statute cannot understand what actions are permissible. The standard for determining whether a statute is constitutional or not is well-established: Legislative acts are ... cloaked with a presumption of constitutionality, and unconstitutionality must appear beyond reasonable doubt. Estate of Smiley, 530 So.2d 18, 21-22 (Miss.1988) (citing Miss. Power Co. v. Goudy, 459 So.2d 257, 263 (Miss.1984)). A statute's validity is presumed: We adhere here to the rule that one who assails a legislative enactment must overcome the strong presumption of validity and such assailant must prove his conclusions affirmatively, and clearly establish it beyond a reasonable doubt. All doubts must be resolved in favor of validity of a statute. If possible, a court should construe statutes so as to render them constitutional rather than unconstitutional if the statute under attack does not clearly and apparently conflict with organic law after first resolving all doubts in favor of validity. Loden v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 279 So.2d 636, 640 (Miss.1973) (citations omitted). Mauldin v. Branch, 866 So.2d 429, 2003 WL 22966144,  (¶ 21) (Miss.2003). ¶ 33. This Court has previously addressed the constitutionality of the Tidelands Act with regard to the discretion delegated to the Secretary of State to draw boundary lines. We held that: The mere fact that the discretion granted the Secretary of State could be interpreted in different lights, does not automatically render it vague. See United States v. Dunkel, 900 F.2d 105, 108 (7th Cir.1990). The procedure established by the tidelands legislation has a reasonable relation to the governmental purpose of establishing the boundary of public trust lands and as such is not vague. Wiesenberg, 633 So.2d at 996. The Tidelands Act does not guarantee a lease for gaming. Only where, in the discretion of the Secretary of State, with approval from the Governor, it is determined that the granting of a lease would serve a higher purpose than to preserve the natural state of the tidelands, may the littoral landowner be granted a lease. Merely because the discretion may be interpreted in different lights does not automatically render it vague. See Wiesenberg, 633 So.2d at 996. As in this case, a party dissatisfied with the Secretary of State's decision may seek judicial review.