125 So. 3d 384
La.2013Background
- Louisiana statutes (La. R.S. 3:3534 and 3:3544) created Rice Promotion and Research Boards and authorized a producer assessment (capped at three cents per cwt) to fund promotion and research.
- Assessments are imposed only if a majority of voting rice producers approve the levy in a statewide referendum; approvals last five years and may be extended by successive referenda.
- Statutes originally allowed producer refunds; a 1992 amendment authorized a referendum of rice producers to "abolish" the refund provisions.
- Plaintiffs (≈40 rice producers) sued, challenging the statutes as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power; the district court struck parts concerning abolition of refunds.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo, considered plaintiffs' facial challenge to the statutes in their entirety, and affirmed the district court but amended its ruling to declare both La. R.S. 3:3534 and 3:3544 unconstitutional in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditioning imposition of the assessment on a majority vote of rice producers is an unlawful delegation of legislative power | Voting by private producers improperly lets a private group create/abolish law and regulate an unwilling minority | Legislature merely made operation of law contingent on a referendum; this is implementation, not lawmaking | Unconstitutional: Legislature may not delegate to private group the power to decide whether statute takes effect |
| Whether allowing rice producers to abolish statutory refund rights is an unlawful repeal-delegation | Granting producers power to "abolish" refunds delegates repeal power to private persons | Referendum simply implements legislative policy; acceptable contingent condition | Unconstitutional: referendum grants private producers power to repeal legislative provisions |
| Whether permitting producers to set the assessment amount (subject to a statutory cap) is an unlawful delegation | Letting producers determine amount means they set the law; no standards or legislative review | Statute expresses legislative policy and caps amount; boards/admin implement policy | Unconstitutional: amount-setting lacks sufficient standards and procedural safeguards; delegation invalid |
| Whether delegation to Rice Boards (for assessment amount) satisfies administrative-delegation test (Schwegmann) | Even if boards act, statute gives no guiding standards or review; fails Schwegmann prongs 2–3 | Boards have expertise and statute contains policy and a cap; action is administrative, not legislative | Unconstitutional: statute meets policy prong but fails to prescribe standards or procedural safeguards; delegation invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1936) (invalidating statutory scheme that delegated regulatory power to private producers)
- Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1939) (upholding statute where referendum was a condition on administrative action, not a transfer of legislative power)
- City of Alexandria v. Alexandria Fire Fighters Ass'n, 57 So.2d 673 (La. 1952) (holding contingent-referendum statute delegating police regulation to private group unconstitutional)
- Schwegmann Bros. v. McCrary, 112 So.2d 606 (La. 1959) (articulating test for valid delegation: legislative policy, standards to guide agency, and procedural safeguards)
- State v. All Pro Paint & Body Shop, Inc., 639 So.2d 707 (La. 1994) (applying and explaining Schwegmann delegation principles)