A judge will make a ruling Wednesday on certain arguments related to a motion to dismiss a civil lawsuit against Ja Morant that was filed June 26 by Morant’s attorneys.

Shelby County Circuit Court Division 2 Judge Carol Chumney will decide whether Morant is immune under Tennessee’s self-defense immunity statute, as his attorneys have argued, or if the case against him can continue.

Rebecca Adelman – who represents Joshua Holloway, the 18-year-old suing Morant – argues the immunity statute, also known as the state’s “stand your ground law,” is unconstitutional based on the facts of this particular case. Adelman also argues that Morant’s lawyers never legitimately pleaded Morant’s immunity as a defense.

Martin: Derrick Rose deserves flowers from Memphis. After 15 years, he’ll finally get them.

Because of the constitutionality claim, the state of Tennessee has now stepped in to defend the law. 

Chumney on Monday granted the state, represented by Jim Newsom, special counsel for the State Attorney General’s Office, a motion to intervene. The state has also filed a motion to continue the case to give it more time to prepare a defense of the law.

But Newsom argued that the constitutionality claims should only be argued if absolutely necessary and that the motion to dismiss could be resolved based on other objections to it made by Adelman. 

Neither Morant’s lawyers nor Holloway’s attorneys objected to a continuance for the constitutionality claims. 

Chumney allowed the attorneys to discuss the objections to the motion to dismiss outside of the constitutionality claim made by Adelman.

Adelman’s argument is that the law is unconstitutional in this case because, in part, granting the motion to dismiss could strip Holloway of his due process rights and right to a trial by jury. 

“Instead it would be the judge determining if Mr. Morant used justified force,” she said. 

Adelman also argued that Morant’s team did not properly plead immunity as a defense and therefore waived his right to immunity in this case.

When it filed the motion to dismiss, Morant’s lawyers argued that Morant used self-defense when he allegedly struck Holloway during the altercation at a pickup basketball game last summer. That game is at the heart of the suit.

“Without having pled it, we lost our right to attack that,” she said after the hearing.

She said the typical procedure dictates that when a complaint is filed by a plaintiff, an answer must come from the defense. That answer is where Morant’s attorneys should have pled immunity, she said. But she argued that Morant’s attorneys never properly pled immunity as a defense in any of their responses. 

She also argued the stand-your-ground statute was inapplicable in this case because the law refers to cases in which both criminal and civil charges are pending.

Adelman, citing that the Shelby County District Attorney’s Office has already declined to pursue charges against Morant, argued there is currently no criminal investigation into Morant, therefore the statute does not apply. 

Morant’s attorneys disagreed, saying subpoenas Adelman has filed against the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office among other things are evidence that there is an ongoing investigation. 

“I don’t want it to be lost about if criminal proceedings are ongoing. Regardless, he is entitled to the protections of this statute,” Will Perry, one of the attorneys representing Morant, told the judge.

From a small town to the NBA, GG Jackson II is just grateful to be here

Adelman said after the hearing that this is the first case in her nearly three decades of experience in which she has had to file a constitutionality challenge.

“Were we preparing to do that? No we weren’t. But now we’re here,” Adelman said. 

Chumney will issue a ruling on the claims of immunity by Morant’s team during a hearing scheduled for 8 a.m. Wednesday, July 12.

If she rules in favor of Holloway, the suit will continue and the constitutionality claim will be dropped, Adelman said. If she rules in Morant’s favor, Adelman said she will continue to challenge the constitutionality of the state law.