The Louisiana Supreme Court, in a 6-1 vote, overturned a state law Friday that gives a special privilege to state lawmakers who are attorneys to automatically delay court proceedings in which they are involved.
“Going forward, I hope this decision will shape future legislative practices to ensure that the Louisiana Legislature will not overstep into the judiciary’s nor the executive branch’s purview,” said Joseph Gregorio, one of the Bossier Parish attorneys who brought the case that resulted in the court’s decision.
The ruling could have broad implications for the Louisiana Legislature’s operations because dozens of lawmakers are also lawyers who operate private practices alongside their elected duties. Lawmakers who are attorneys use legislative continuances to push back court appearances and filings for clients they represent when they conflict with their statehouse responsibilities.
It also comes at a sensitive time for Gov. Jeff Landry, who intends to convene a special legislative session in November to pass a once-in-a-generation tax system overhaul. If numerous lawmakers have scheduling conflicts between the session and their day jobs as lawyers, it could make the special session more difficult to run efficiently.
“I’m definitely concerned that it will create a problem for members,” Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, said in an interview Friday afternoon.
Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office had defended the law in court last month and disagreed with Friday’s ruling.
“We are disappointed in the outcome but respect that the Court has the authority to make that decision,” Murrill said in a written statement.
Associate Justice Jeff Hughes said in the majority opinion written for the court that it is imperative judges, not lawmakers, have the final say over a case’s schedule.
“The constitution does not permit legislators who are also attorneys unchecked authority to continue any deadline whatsoever for any reason simply by virtue of their status as a legislator especially when doing so may not be in the best interest of their own client,” Hughes wrote.
Lawmakers are likely to file bills to recreate the legislative continuance privilege, albeit with more restrictions. Sen. Gregory Miller, R-Norco, said he would consider a system which allows for legislative court extensions to be challenged through a hearing on the matter.
“I’m hoping we can tighten up some of the language in the statute,” Miller said.
Chief Justice John Weimer, in a concurring opinion to the one written by Hughes, suggested a more limited version of the overturned statute could past constitutional muster.
“Given the invaluable contributions of attorneys to our system of government, the court must seek an accommodation, but one which strikes a collegial and rational balance between the respective branches of government,” Weimer wrote.
At a hearing over the issue last month, Supreme Court justices expressed exasperation that lawmakers had adequately addressed complaints broached about the automatic court delays through legislation in recent years.
To the contrary, lawmakers approved a bill earlier this year that would have expanded their legislative continuance privilege in some ways, which Landry stopped from becoming law through a veto. At the time, the governor said he was uncomfortable with the “unchecked” nature of legislative continuances already.
In his opinion, Hughes also cited decisions by courts in other states, including Vermont, Nevada, Alaska, Oklahoma and Wisconsin, that threw out similar provisions.
“Denying a court the power to decide matters historically considered as falling exclusively within the bailiwick of the judicial branch subverts the power of the judiciary in violation of the separation of powers doctrine,” Hughes wrote. “Other state courts have reached similar conclusions.”
The one dissenting opinion was from Justice Jay McCallum, a former legislator. He said the justices should have taken a narrower approach instead of throwing out the legislative continuance statute altogether.
“The majority has removed an unattractive wart by using a chainsaw when a scalpel would have remedied the current litigants’ problems and inflicted no collateral damage to our codal system of law,” McCallum wrote.
The constitutionality of legislative continuances came to the Supreme Court through a case in which state Sen. Alan Seabaugh and Rep. Michael Melerine, both Republicans from Shreveport, were co-counsel.
Attorneys for Caddo resident Theresa Fisher alleged Seabaugh and Melerine unreasonably delayed resolution of Fisher’s automobile lawsuit, first filed in 2019, by demanding numerous extensions related to their legislative work. In the case, Seabaugh and Melerine represented the driver who hit Fisher, the driver’s father and the father’s insurance company.
Seabaugh has served in the Legislature since 2011, including 12 years in the Louisiana House of Representatives. Melerine took Seabaugh’s seat in the House in January.
At last month’s court hearing on the issue, the justices uniformly agreed that the delay Seabaugh and Melerine caused in the Fisher case was unconscionable. McCallum, the most sympathetic to the legislators’ cause, even referred to Seabaugh and Melerine’s conduct in the case as “repugnant.”
Seabaugh and Melerine could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.
The privilege for legislative continuances doesn’t just apply to state lawmakers but also extends to legislative employees. Continuances granted to legislative employees haven’t been the source of controversy however.