890 F. Supp. 2d 696
E.D. La.2012Background
- Chisom Plaintiffs filed a Voting Rights Act case in 1986 seeking to change Louisiana Supreme Court election method.
- Consent Judgment was entered August 21, 1992 and amended January 3, 2000, with Act 512 and later Act 776 influencing tenure/seniority.
- Perschall v. State (La. Supreme Court) held Act 512 unconstitutional but bound State to Consent Judgment terms.
- Justice Bernette Johnson intervened in 1997 and later asserted tenure/seat rights; questions emerged about crediting time served.
- June 13, 2012 Louisiana Supreme Court order prompted Justice Johnson and Chisom to seek interpretation of the Consent Judgment regarding tenure.
- This federal district court retained jurisdiction to interpret the Consent Judgment pending final remedy under the decree.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has continuing jurisdiction to interpret the Consent Judgment | Johnson/Chisom: final remedy not achieved; court retains power. | State: jurisdiction limited by 1992/2000 terms and final remedy attained. | Court has continuing jurisdiction to interpret the Consent Judgment. |
| Whether the Consent Judgment covers Justice Johnson's tenure for all purposes under Louisiana law | Johnson/Chisom: tenure time is emolument and equals seniority rights. | State: Act 776 clarifies tenure rules; amendments govern. | Consent Judgment credits Johnson's service from 11/16/1994 to 10/7/2000 for all purposes. |
| Whether the court should abstain under Younger, Pullman, Burford/Colorado River, or equitable abstention | Court should interpret decree; federal action appropriate due to government intervenor status. | State urges abstention due to state proceedings and comity concerns. | The court declines abstention under Younger, Pullman, Burford, Colorado River, and equitable abstention. |
| Whether joinder of the six other Louisiana Supreme Court justices is required | Complete relief requires joining those justices as defendants. | Not necessary; Court can interpret the Consent Judgment binding on State and parties. | Joinder denied; Court can interpret Consent Judgment binding on the State and Supreme Court. |
| Whether contempt or injunctive relief is warranted against individual justices | Contempt and injunction to enforce the decree. | Contempt unnecessary; injunctive relief not appropriate here. | Contempt motions denied; no injunctive relief granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (U.S. 2004) (consent decrees are enforceable like injunctions and hybrids of contract and decree)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1992) (consent decrees as flexible agreements subject to modification)
- City of Miami, 664 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1981) (consent decree elements and injunctive nature; enforceability)
- Alcoa, Inc., 533 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2008) (retains jurisdiction to enforce consent decrees; injunctive mechanisms)
- Gates v. Shinn, 98 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 1996) (consent decrees are in substance contractual and injunctive)
- Nehmer v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2007) (final remedy not yet achieved preserves jurisdiction to interpret)
- Perschall v. State, 697 So.2d 240 (La. Supreme Court 1997) (recognizes Consent Judgment as binding and Act 512 context)