On July 1, after seven days of testimony and nearly four hours of closing arguments, the federal trial over control of Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport ended. The next move belongs to U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, and he is not expected to rush.

The case, first filed in 2016, challenges Senate Bill 2162, the state law that would replace the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority with a nine-member regional board appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor, and supervisors from Rankin and Madison Counties. Jackson argues the law was racially motivated, passed after the election of Mayor Chokwe Lumumba and the appointment of an all-Black JMAA board. The state says it was about poor management and the loss of Southwest Airlines.

In her closing argument, JMAA attorney LaToya Merritt told the court the takeover was always about money and race. She pointed to testimony from Joey Songy, former chief of staff to Governor Phil Bryant, who began drafting the takeover plan in May 2015, months before the bill was introduced. Songy testified that he spoke with stakeholders as he developed the idea but could not name anyone beyond the executive director of the Mississippi Development Authority. He did not meet with the JMAA board, the airport CEO, or the Jackson City Council, Merritt said.

City Attorney Drew Martin went further. He noted that Hinds County Circuit Judge Adrienne Wooten, then a state representative, testified that the bill was manipulated on the legislative calendar when members known to oppose it were absent. Martin said no lawmaker who supported the bill took the stand. 'We don't know what the other legislators said under oath, because they didn't show up and say,' he told the court.

Assistant Attorney General Justin Matheny countered that the lawmakers who backed 2162 did not need to testify because their floor statements were already in the record. He argued that Senator Josh Harkins made clear during debate that the bill responded to Southwest's departure, high airfares, and downgraded bonds. 'There is so much in this case that are not facts,' Matheny said, calling claims about a potential airport name change 'speculation, innuendo, and frankly, fear mongering.'

The trial produced one detail that has received less attention than it deserves. Records introduced in court show that while then-CEO Carl Newman opposed 2162, he told Harkins that Hawkins Field, the smaller airport in west Jackson, should also be included in the legislation because it would not survive on its own. The state cited this as evidence that the city was consulted. The city saw it differently: one concession does not make a partnership.

Closing arguments lasted nearly four hours. Attorneys for JMAA, the city, the state, and Rankin County each made their case. Reeves asked questions throughout, but gave no indication of which way he is leaning.

The timeline is now clear. Both sides have until September 4 to submit post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. After that, Reeves will issue a ruling. Attorneys on both sides have signaled that whatever he decides will likely be appealed. Any transfer of control would also require approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, which, according to testimony, is unlikely to sign off unless all parties agree.

Ten years after the bill was signed into law, the airport still operates under the same city-controlled board. The same terminal, the same name, the same management. The state has not taken over. The city has not prevailed. The case has survived four trips to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, outlasted two governors and two mayors, and now sits with one judge in one courtroom.

Reeves has already ruled once that the city presented enough evidence to proceed to trial on allegations that SB 2162 targeted Jackson and transferred control of a city-owned asset to a board largely appointed by officials from majority-white jurisdictions. That was in 2023. Now he must decide whether the evidence at trial proved it.

The question Reeves will answer is not just about an airport. It is about whether Mississippi can restructure control of a majority-Black city's assets over that city's objections, and whether the Constitution stops it. That is why this case has lasted a decade. That is why it will not end with one ruling.