Judge rules against Mississippi in Biloxi waterfront land dispute

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson has lost another court case over waterfront land in Biloxi. A chancery judge ruled Thursday that Grand Casino Biloxi owns a small parcel south of U.S. 90, west of Oak Street — not the state.

Judge Jim Persons based his ruling on an April 2024 Mississippi Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving the Aldrich family and the now-defunct Lady Luck Casino, the SunHerald reported.

The land in question was part of a 1784 Spanish Land Grant, deemed valid by the high court, which transferred the property to private ownership long before Mississippi achieved statehood in 1817. That same grant covers the Grand’s small, undeveloped parcel.

State officials, including Watson and his predecessors, argued the land should be considered public tidelands—requiring developers to lease from the state and generating revenue. However, Judge Persons found that the state’s claim did not apply in this case.

“As previously noted, the Supreme Court affirmed this court’s judgment in Aldrich and specifically held that the land grant was ‘clearly’ valid and transferred the property to a private owner," Persons said.

The ruling marks the fifth such loss for the Secretary of State’s office in recent tidelands disputes. Harrison County Attorney Tim Holleman criticized the continued litigation. “It concerns me that the secretary of state continues to litigate cases and spend taxpayer money on cases where the court has already ruled,” he said.

The city of Biloxi and Harrison County both joined Grand Casino and the Aldrich family in their respective lawsuits against the state, all of which have been successful.

Meanwhile, Watson remains entangled in two additional lawsuits involving proposed casino developments on the north side of U.S. 90, near the former sites of the Tivoli Hotel and Tullis-Toledano Manor. Both locations were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Post-Katrina legal changes now allow casinos to be built onshore, but they must lease or own adjacent waterfront property—another point of contention in ongoing litigation.

Courts have previously ruled that cities and counties, not the state, may authorize waterfront development and leases in certain cases—raising further questions about the future of state tidelands claims.