Louisiana's Supreme Court has struck a blow to a controversial state law that's given lawmakers who are practicing attorneys the power to delay events in their cases with little judicial supervision.
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Louisiana's legislative continuance statute is unconstitutional because "legislation subverting the courts' constitutional power violates the separation of powers doctrine." Under the law, attorney-lawmakers and other lawyers who are legislative employees have been able to request that court proceedings in any case they're working on be postponed so as not to interfere with legislative business, giving attorney-legislators the power to freeze all events in a case for the entirety of the legislative session as well as 30 days before and after.
The law grants attorney-lawmakers "peremptory grounds" to request these delays, meaning that they don't need to provide judges further justification when making continuance requests. As long as they make their motion at least five days before a court date, judges must grant them within 72 hours, according to the law.
"This statute presents the potential for the unfettered and extended delay of trial court proceedings," Justice Jefferson Hughes wrote in the court's majority opinion. "The courts will not sanction any legislation challenged on the basis that it has the effect of divesting or stripping the courts of their inherent power."
The decision comes as result of a challenge filed by Shreveport lawyers Joseph Gregorio and J. Cole Sartin who alleged that Louisiana Sen. Alan Seabaugh and State Rep. Michael Melerine were abusing the continuance law to drag out a personal injury case centered around a 2018 Caddo Parish car accident.
Seabaugh and Melerine work at the same law office, of which Seabaugh is a founding partner.
"We are very thankful for the significant opinion handed down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in our client Theresa Fisher's favor," Gregorio said. "This ruling not only underscores the importance of upholding individual rights to have one's case timely heard within our legal system but also highlights the critical role that our judiciary plays in interpreting and protecting our Louisiana Constitution. 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."
The Louisiana Attorney General's Office supported Seabaugh and Melerine's opposition to Gregorio and Sartin's challenge, first submitting an opinion siding with the lawmakers while the case progressed through Caddo Parish court.
""We are disappointed in the outcome but respect that the court has the authority to make that decision," Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said.
Seabaugh and Melerine did not respond to The Shreveport-Bossier City Advocate's requests for comment Friday afternoon.
The Supreme Court's decision follows several attempts by lawmakers to expand their colleagues' delay power in recent years, including Senate Bill 185, a measure Seabaugh introduced this year that sought to strengthen attorney-legislators' delay power. That bill would've mandated that parties who challenge an attorney-legislators' motion for a legislative continuance must pay attorney fees and court costs associated with the challenge.
The bill passed without a single "no" vote in either the House or Senate but Gov. Jeff Landry vetoed it in June, writing that the bill went too far.
"Some legal proceedings warrant immediate relief, and judicial delay is not possible," Landry wrote. "Attorneys advocating for their clients in these unique cases should not have to do so under the threat of being sanctioned with attorney fees and court costs. Additionally, there is no oversight in Louisiana over legislative continuances. Attorney-legislators provide much-needed expertise to the Legislature, and therefore, I am not opposed to legislative continuances in general. Nonetheless, an attorney-legislator can simply enroll as counsel of record or place his or her name on a pleading to qualify for a continuance or extension in any case."
Pushes by lawmakers to further protect their colleagues' ability to receive continuances were often met by outspoken criticism from around the state, including from Kim Sport, a New Orleans attorney and the former chair of the Louisiana Commission to Prevent Domestic Violence.
The Supreme Court's decision was in part the result of the Legislature expanding attorney-lawmakers' delay power over the years, Sport said Friday.
"The statute, as originally written, probably would not have been declared unconstitutional, the problem is that it has been perverted over time by the Legislature with amendments increasingly expanding the ability of legislators who are attorneys to encroach on the judiciary's inherent powers," Sport said.
"Congratulations to Joe Gregorio and his team who won this huge case. I was wary when he contacted me about his plans to challenge this long-standing law, but he got it done. I have been very vocal about abuse of this law, and recent attempts by self-serving legislators to further expand the privilege to the point of absolute ridiculousness have thankfully been thwarted.
"I have worked with many legislators who are attorneys and found their contributions invaluable. I agree that these legislators need some accommodation to practice law while serving the public. At a minimum, requests for continuances should remain at the discretion of the courts, and the legislator requesting a continuance should have to be the lead attorney in the case to be continued. If another attorney can take the place of the legislator, every effort should be made to assure this occurs. Without these basic safeguards, a legislator could use the power of office to receive unreported income simply by adding his or her name to a legal document. This is wrong."
Email Brendan Heffernan at Brendan.Heffernan@TheAdvocate.com or follow him on Twitter, @HeffTheReporter.
Sign up for the daily Shreveport-Bossier email newsletter or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.