Background
Act 748 of Louisiana’s 2026 Regular Session made several changes to the Orleans Parish courts, including abolishing Sections A, E, and J of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court when the incumbents’ terms expired and barring further elections for those judgeships. Judge John T. Fuller, who had been elected to Section J for a term ending December 31, 2026, sued the state and several officials, principally arguing that the Louisiana Constitution required approval by two-thirds of the elected members of each legislative house before the number of district judges could be changed.
The conference committee report had received 25 votes in the 39-member Senate and 62 votes in the 105-member House. The district court concluded that the supermajority requirement in Louisiana Constitution Article V, Section 15(D) controlled, declared Act 748 “null and void,” and preliminarily enjoined election officials from finally omitting the affected judgeships from the November 2026 ballot. Given the approaching qualifying period, the Louisiana Supreme Court assumed plenary supervisory jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings below.
The Court’s Holding
In a per curiam opinion, the court held that Act 748’s challenged provisions were constitutionally enacted by an ordinary legislative majority. Article V, Section 32 specifically continues the Orleans Parish civil and criminal district courts “subject to change by law” notwithstanding contrary constitutional provisions. The court concluded that this provision gives the legislature authority to alter those courts—including by reducing their judgeships—without satisfying Section 15(D)’s two-thirds-vote requirement.
The court also rejected Fuller’s alternative contention that Act 748 was an impermissible local or special law, reasoning that laws governing state courts and judicial officers concern matters of statewide importance even when their immediate operation is geographically limited. It further held that the district court improperly declared the statute unconstitutional during a preliminary-injunction proceeding because such a merits ruling ordinarily must occur in an ordinary proceeding unless the parties agree otherwise.
The court lifted the stay and injunction, vacated the district court’s judgment, rendered judgment for the defendants, and dismissed Fuller’s claims. Chief Justice Weimer and Justices Griffin and Guidry dissented; Justices McCallum, Cole, and Burris separately concurred.
Key Takeaways
- Louisiana Constitution Article V, Section 32 permits the legislature to change the Orleans Parish civil and criminal district courts by ordinary legislation, notwithstanding the general supermajority rule for changing the number of district judges.
- Act 748 validly abolished three Orleans Parish Criminal District Court sections at the expiration of the incumbents’ terms and barred new elections for those seats.
- A court generally may not declare a statute unconstitutional on the merits during a preliminary-injunction hearing absent the parties’ agreement to submit the merits for decision.
Why It Matters
The ruling allows Louisiana to implement Act 748’s reduction of Orleans Parish Criminal District Court judgeships before the 2026 election and confirms broad legislative authority over the Orleans Parish courts under Article V, Section 32. It also clarifies that the ordinary constitutional supermajority protection for district judgeships does not restrict changes made under that Orleans-specific provision.
The decision additionally reinforces procedural limits on resolving constitutional challenges through summary preliminary-injunction proceedings and treats court-organization legislation as a matter of statewide, rather than merely local, concern.