The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday upheld a law that eliminates three of the 12 judgeships on the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, delivering a 4-3 decision that dismisses a constitutional challenge from one of the affected judges.
What the ruling does
The court’s majority found that a provision of the state constitution that generally requires a two-thirds legislative vote to change the number of judges in a district does not apply to the Orleans Parish judiciary in this instance. The move finalizes Act 748 (formerly Senate Bill 217), a package passed by lawmakers earlier this year that reorganized the unique court structure of Orleans Parish — the only parish in Louisiana with separate civil and criminal district courts.
The law reduces the criminal court from 12 to 9 judgeships. In the bill’s earlier drafts the three positions slated for elimination were to be determined by seniority; the final conference committee language instead specified particular sections and judges, naming District Judges A, E and J in the body of the act and—after a late swap—identifying specific sitting judges affected.
Names and votes
- Judges initially identified by seniority criteria: Section A Judge Simone Levine, Section J Judge John T. Fuller and Section I Judge Leon Roché.
- Conference committee changes: Roché was swapped for District E Judge Rhonda Goode-Douglass, and District Judges A, E and J were specifically named in the final version.
| Legislative vote | Count |
|---|---|
| House | 62–34 |
| Senate | 25–10 |
| Two-thirds threshold (required by challengers) | House 70, Senate 26 |
The bill passed the House 62–34 and the Senate 25–10. Opponents argued those tallies fell short of the supermajority required by Section 15(D) of the Louisiana Constitution to reduce judgeships in a judicial district.
Legal challenge and the court’s split
District Judge John T. Fuller filed suit alleging the Legislature failed to comply with the constitutional two-thirds requirement when it reduced the number of judges in the Orleans Criminal District Court. The high court majority disagreed, concluding that the constitutional language at issue exempts the Orleans judiciary from the supermajority constraint as applied here.
“As the majority correctly observes, ‘notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution’ means exactly what it says,”
Justice William Burris, in a concurring opinion, framed the majority’s reading around that textual exemption.
“Act 748 failed to gain the necessary votes as required by §15(D) and is therefore unconstitutional to the extent it reduced the number of district judges in Orleans Criminal District Court,”
That passage appears in Justice Piper Griffin’s dissent, which criticized the majority for what she characterized as disregarding the supermajority safeguard and, in her view, signaling disparate treatment of New Orleans.
Political context and lawmakers’ roles
Sen. Jay Morris of West Monroe sponsored the original SB 217, which called for trimming the three criminal-court judges with the least seniority. Conferees later changed the bill’s language; Morris has said the governor’s office and the Orleans delegation were credited for the final version. Members of the conference committee did not publicly explain the swap that removed Judge Leon Roché from the list and instead named Judge Rhonda Goode-Douglass.
Whether the change was procedural, political or prompted by local input remains largely opaque in the court record and the legislative history available to the public. The case highlights how conference committee actions — often occurring late in a session — can materially alter the effect of legislation and prompt constitutional challenges.
Immediate and local impacts
With the decision now final, the Criminal District Court in New Orleans will operate with three fewer judgeships. That will reshape case assignments, calendar management and the workload distribution across the remaining bench. The Orleans court system already differs from most parishes; the law’s sponsors framed the reorganization as part of broader efforts to streamline local judicial administration.
Defense attorneys, prosecutors and court administrators will have to adapt to an altered judicial roster. The ruling also removes a point of contention over legislative procedure that could have produced additional litigation or calls for constitutional amendment.
What comes next
- Operational changes in the Criminal District Court: reassignments and schedule adjustments.
- Potential legislative or administrative responses from the Orleans delegation or local court leadership.
- Possible political fallout in future legislative sessions over how judgeships are allocated and whether statutory protections should be clarified.
The decision landed like a summer thunderclap: sudden, divisive and certain to reshape court business in a city that has long carried its own approaches to justice. For now, Act 748 stands and the Orleans criminal bench will look smaller when court calendars resume and the clatter of gavels fills the hallways once again.
