The civil lawsuit against Memphis Grizzlies star Ja Morant picked back up Thursday, Oct. 12, after a monthslong break in the summer.

Shelby County Circuit Court Division 2 Judge Carol Chumney heard oral arguments from attorneys representing Morant, the State of Tennessee and a former Memphis teen about whether Tennessee’s self-defense immunity statute, otherwise known as the “stand your ground” law, is applicable to the case. They also discussed whether claims about the statute’s constitutionality claims were “ripe,” or ready to be heard by the court.

Attorney Rebecca Adelman said in her opening statements that Chumney essentially had two paths before her: Either deny Morant’s right to claim self-defense under the law, and therefore deny he has immunity from the civil suit, or grant it.

Taylor Jenkins says Ja Morant can practice, travel with team

But if Morant was allowed to claim self-defense, she said, it would open the door for constitutional challenges to the law.

“Then ... the court will navigate the long and winding road of the various constitutional challenges,” Adelman said. 

Morant has claimed immunity from the civil lawsuit under the state’s “stand your ground” law, saying he acted in self-defense during a July 2022 fight with the then-17-year-old Joshua Holloway.

The fight started over a pickup basketball game at a house Morant owns in Eads. The game turned sour, and Holloway allegedly threw a ball at Morant’s face. The professional basketball player, along with friend Davonte Pack, then allegedly assaulted the teen. 

Holloway’s mother initially sued on her son’s behalf, but the complaint was amended in March 2023 after Holloway turned 18.

In July of this year, the main lawsuit was put on hold, pending a ruling from Chumney over the constitutionality of Tennessee’s “stand your ground” law. At the time, Chumney ruled that Morant could use the immunity statute for his defense, precipitating the question from Adelman, who represents Holloway, about the law’s constitutionality. 

The law, Tennessee Annotated Code 39-11-611, covers the use of self-defense. Basically, it says that a person who isn’t doing anything illegal has a right to use force or threaten to use it against someone who is attempting to use unlawful force.

But Adelman argued Thursday that “stand your ground” only applies to criminal cases and not civil proceedings such as this one. 

She also argued that the law requires there to be an ongoing criminal case for a person to use “stand your ground” as a defense, and in this case, there is not. Morant was not charged in the alleged assault, although Pack was in July of this year after he said in a deposition he punched Holloway once.

Though Morant was never charged, his attorney, William Perry, said there was “no question” he was questioned as part of a criminal investigation.

Grizzlies Insider: Ja Morant shows his loyalty and ‘rebirth’ T-shirt in new video

Perry, citing a subsection of the statute, argued it does not require there to be an ongoing criminal proceeding to claim immunity from a suit. It simply describes the process by which immunity can be invoked.

“That’s exactly what Mr. Morant has done,” Perry said.

The only part of the statute that does refer to criminal proceedings is an earlier subsection, he said. But Perry argued that it only refers to criminal cases to allow civil proceedings to be stayed against defendants who are also facing criminal proceedings and grant them the right to protect themselves against self-incrimination.

Is the state’s self-defense law constitutional?

Cody Brandon, an attorney with the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office, argued that Chumney should only rule on the constitutionality of “stand your ground” if absolutely necessary.

He said the state does not think that the lawsuit against Morant should be dismissed nor that fees should be awarded to him from Holloway — but that the court should only rule on the constitutional issues if it is likely to rule in favor of Morant.

Herrington: Ja Morant’s new ink? Like so much else, a temptation to interpret

There are two standards for “ripeness” in this case: whether the claims are fit for judicial review and whether it would cause hardship to Holloway to not have the constitutional claims heard. 

Adelman argued her claims are ripe because Holloway would be prejudiced by having the case against Morant dismissed and therefore having to pay his attorneys fees and other costs, a condition outlined in the statute if a defendant is granted immunity.

“Our argument is, yes, we shouldn’t have to wait until we get through an immunity hearing later and then decide whether or not there are constitutional issues. … We should have the determination now,” Adelman told reporters after the hearing.

She also said her claims are fit for review by Chumney because they are “purely legal,” as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Perry argued the claims are not ripe because Adelman’s claims are hypothetical.

Davonte Pack, childhood friend of Ja Morant, makes first court appearance

He agreed that the constitutionality claims should only be argued if absolutely necessary, and to get there, Morant would have to hypothetically be ruled immune from the civil suit under “stand your ground.”

Lawyers for all three sides will return for a verdict from Chumney on Nov. 16 at 10:30 a.m.