Prejean v. Barousse
107 So. 3d 569
| La. | 2013Background
- In a Louisiana child custody proceeding, the last day of trial was March 18, 2011, after which the district judge took the matter under advisement.
- Plaintiff Prejean sought a writ of mandamus to force notice to the auditor for delay and to withhold one quarter’s salary from the district judge under La. R.S. 13:4210.
- The district court denied the mandamus; the court of appeal affirmed and then raised and held La. R.S. 13:4210 unconstitutional on its face.
- The supreme court granted certiorari to review the declaration of unconstitutionality, and submitted the case on briefs after waiving oral argument.
- La. R.S. 13:4207–13:4209 set deadlines for rendering judgments; La. R.S. 13:4210 provides for forfeiture of one quarter’s salary and auditor notification for violations.
- The court held 13:4210 unconstitutional on its face under the exclusive jurisdiction of the supreme court over judicial discipline and because it reduces a judge’s salary during the term, violating Art. V, § 25(C) and § 21.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is R.S. 13:4210 unconstitutional on its face? | Prejean argues the statute improperly disciplines judges and encroaches on the court's exclusive authority. | Barousse argues the legislature may enact penalties for delayed judgments. | Yes; statute unconstitutional on its face. |
| Does 13:4210 violate the constitutional exclusive original jurisdiction over judicial discipline? | Prejean asserts the statute usurps the supreme court’s disciplinary powers. | Barousse contends it is a valid legislative mechanism for accountability. | Yes; it conflicts with exclusive jurisdiction. |
| Does 13:4210 violate Art. V, § 21 by decreasing a judge’s pay during the term? | Prejean highlights prohibited salary reduction during a judge’s elected term. | Barousse maintains the statute is a permissible disciplinary tool. | Yes; it decreases compensation during the term. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Hughes, 874 So.2d 746 (La. 2004) (discipline of judges; exclusive jurisdiction considerations)
- In re Wimbish, 733 So.2d 1183 (La. 1999) (judicial discipline and sanctions)
- Board of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Connick, 654 So.2d 1073 (La. 1995) (facial challenges to statutes; constitutional limits)
- Redwine v. State, 649 So.2d 61 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1994) (salary reductions during terms; due process concerns)
- City of New Orleans v. Louisiana Assessors Retirement and Relief Fund, 986 So.2d 1 (La. 2007) (constitutional implications of pension and compensation provisions)
- Medlen v. State, 418 So.2d 618 (La. 1982) (legislature limitations on conduct of officials; 보호)
- Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 646 So.2d 859 (La. 1994) (unconstitutionality challenges and pleading requirements)
- Arrington v. Galen-Med, Inc., 947 So.2d 727 (La. 2007) (statutory challenges; facial invalidity analysis)