ANTHONY ALLEN; STEPHANIE ANTHONY; LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP v. STATE OF LOUISIANA; R. KYLE ARDOIN, Secretary of State of Louisiana in his official capacity
No. 20-30734
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
September 17, 2021
Before DAVIS, DUNCAN, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
STUART KYLE DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
Three decades ago, a federal consent decree—the “Chisom decree“—created Louisiana‘s one majority-black supreme court district. In this appeal, we are asked whether that decree also governs the other six districts. The answer is no.
The district court therefore rightly denied Louisiana‘s motion to dismiss this Voting Rights Act suit for lack of jurisdiction. The state argued that the Chisom decree centralizes perpetual federal control over all supreme court districts in the Eastern District of Louisiana, which issued the decree. The district court rejected
Louisiana would inflate the Chisom decree beyond its terms and the lawsuit that spawned it. The present suit, however, addresses a different electoral district untouched by the decree. So, even assuming the decree still lives after all these years—something we are not asked to decide—it could not oust the district court‘s jurisdiction over this case. This being a certified appeal, we decide that and nothing more.
The certified order is AFFIRMED.
I.
The seven members of the Louisiana Supreme Court are currently elected from these seven single-member districts:
Plaintiffs claim this system unlawfully dilutes black votes. So, in 2019 they sued in the Middle District of Louisiana under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
Louisiana moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It argued that, due to the Chisom decree‘s continuing operation, only the Eastern District of Louisiana has “subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving Louisiana‘s Supreme Court districts.” The district court disagreed for two reasons. Principally, it ruled that Plaintiffs’ only aim is to redraw District 5 and so their suit “falls outside the jurisdiction of the Chisom [decree],” which concerned only the new district—District 7—spawned by the Chisom litigation. Alternatively, even granting Louisiana‘s premise that this suit “collaterally attacks” the decree, the court ruled Plaintiffs could bring such an attack. The court reasoned that, under Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755 (1989), “non-parties to a consent decree can in fact bring a separate action challenging that decree except in certain narrow exceptions” not relevant here.3
The district court then granted Louisiana‘s motion for interlocutory appeal.4 The court stated that its order denying Louisiana‘s motion to dismiss presented this controlling question of law: “[W]hether the Eastern District [of Louisiana] has exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction over all matters involving Louisiana Supreme Court districts under the [Chisom decree].” We accepted the appeal. See
II.
The issues before us are all subject to de novo review. Certified orders are reviewed de novo, United States ex rel. Simoneaux v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 843 F.3d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir. 2016), as
III.
The district court ruled that its jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ suit was undisturbed by the Chisom decree, which principally concerned a different electoral district from the one at issue here. We agree and affirm on that basis. So, we need not reach the court‘s alternative holding that Plaintiffs can collaterally attack the decree. To explain our decision, we first sketch the decree‘s origins. Then we explain why the decree, assuming it is still in force, does not oust the district court of jurisdiction over this case.
A.
The Chisom decree arose out of a 1986 class action challenging the prior system for electing the Louisiana Supreme Court.5 Five justices were elected from five single-member districts; the other two were elected from a single at-large district (the “First Supreme Court District“) that encompassed four parishes—Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, and Plaquemines. See
After years of litigation, the parties entered into the 1992 Chisom decree contingent on the state legislature‘s enacting Act 512, which occurred that same year. The decree did the following. First, it created a new supreme court district “comprised solely of Orleans Parish,” from which a new justice would be elected when a vacancy opened in the at-large district. Second, the decree created a temporary ”Chisom seat” on the supreme court; this seat would be filled by an eighth justice—drawn from a new slot on the Louisiana Fourth Circuit—who would serve in rotation with the other justices. The Chisom seat would expire, however, upon the seating of a justice elected from the newly-created Orleans Parish district. Third, the decree called for legislative “reapportionment of the seven districts of the Louisiana Supreme Court.” Specifically, “[t]he reapportionment [would] provide for a single-member district that is majority black in voting age population that includes Orleans Parish in its entirety,” effective January 1, 2000. This last task was accomplished in 1997 when Act 776 created a seven district map which included a new majority-black district—the present District 7—encompassing almost all of Orleans Parish.6 (That map, which remains in effect today, is reprinted above). Finally, the Chisom decree provided the Eastern District “shall retain jurisdiction over this case until the complete implementation of the final remedy has been accomplished.”
In 2012, federal litigation arose over the decree. The dispute concerned the tenure of then-Justice Bernette Johnson, who had been elected to the Chisom seat in 1994 and to the District 7 seat in 2000. See Chisom v. Jindal, 890 F. Supp. 2d 696, 707 & n.27 (E.D. La. 2012). Interpreting the decree, the Eastern District ruled Justice Johnson was to be fully credited for her service since 1994, resulting in her elevation to the position of Chief Justice. Id. at 728. The court rejected Louisiana‘s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to interpret the decree. To the contrary, the court ruled there had been no “affirmative ruling” terminating the decree, “nor . . . any request that this be done.” Id. at 711. It also found that the decree‘s “final remedy” had not been accomplished yet and that the court therefore had “continuing jurisdiction and power to interpret the [decree]” to settle Justice Johnson‘s tenure. Ibid. The court “expressly retain[ed] jurisdiction over th[e] case until that final remedy is implemented.” Ibid.
B.
On appeal, Louisiana argues the district court read the Chisom decree too narrowly. According to the state, the decree‘s “four corners” encompass all seven supreme court districts, not just District 7. This means, we are told, that the decades-old decree “dictat[es] the perpetuation of the redistricting finalized by the Louisiana Legislature in 1997” and “constitutes a continuing injunction with respect to the seven Louisiana Supreme Court districts under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Eastern District Court.” Accordingly, by seeking to redraw District 5, Louisiana contends Plaintiffs are asking the district court to exceed its jurisdiction and “modify the orders” of another district. The district court disagreed, reading the Chisom decree to affect only the existing majority-black district in Orleans Parish. On that view, Plaintiffs’ suit “falls outside the [decree‘s] jurisdiction” because it addressed only District 5. We agree with the district court.
“Consent decrees are hybrid creatures, part contract and part judicial decree.” Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Concordia Par., 906 F.3d 327, 334 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). They are interpreted “according to general principles of contract law.” Frew v. Janek, 780 F.3d 320, 327 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up); accord United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223, 238 (1975). We consult the contract law of the relevant state, here Louisiana.7 See
The district court‘s construal of the Chisom decree follows these principles. The court first looked to the decree‘s four corners and read it holistically. See
Furthermore, the district court also properly read the decree in light of the 1986 lawsuit it settled. See
In response, Louisiana points to the decree‘s calling for “reapportionment of the seven districts of the Louisiana Supreme Court.” But Louisiana misses the context of that statement. The next sentence specifies that “[t]he reapportionment will provide for a single-member district that is majority black in voting age population that includes Orleans Parish in its entirety.” So, while the decree does reference the anticipated restructuring of all districts, its focus is on the one majority-black district—today‘s District 7—sought by the Chisom suit. That suit had nothing to do with the other districts and, accordingly, the decree has nothing to say about how they are to be apportioned. Louisiana‘s squinting at one statement in the decree ignores the rule that “[o]ne provision of a contract should not be construed separately at the expense of disregarding other provisions.” Baldwin, 156 So. 3d at 38.
Id. at 38 (citing Sims v. Mulhearn Funeral Home, Inc., 07-0054, p. 8 (La. 5/22/07), 956 So. 2d 583, 589;
Louisiana next focuses on the decree‘s statement that “future Supreme Court elections . . . shall take place in the newly reapportioned districts.” From this, Louisiana draws the conclusion that the decree “dictat[es] the perpetuation” of the entire
This overreads the decree extravagantly. Louisiana forgets “the inherent limitation upon federal judicial authority” that “federal-court decrees must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself.” Bd. of Educ. of Okla. City Pub. Sch. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 247 (1991) (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 282 (1977)). The violation alleged in Chisom was vote dilution in the at-large district, not in the other five single-member districts or statewide. The decree was tailored to remedy that violation. But Louisiana wants us to read the decree as “perpetuat[ing]” federal control over all elections in all districts. That we cannot do. Even if the decree supported Louisiana‘s maximalist reading (it does not, see supra), a federal consent decree cannot manacle a state‘s entire judicial election system based on an alleged violation in one district. A federal court would lack authority to enter such a decree, even if the parties asked it to.9 So, we reject
Louisiana‘s argument that the Chisom decree extends continuing federal judicial control over every election in every supreme court district.
In light of that, we are puzzled by Louisiana‘s invoking “federalism concerns” to support its argument. Louisiana‘s brief asserts that “federalism concerns are significantly heightened” when litigants use federal courts to “maintain injunctive oversight of a state‘s sovereign functions.” Yet, on the next page, Louisiana tells us that it entered into the Chisom decree “to avoid further litigation over supreme court districts” and that the decree “is binding upon [Louisiana] in perpetuity unless and until [the Eastern District] says otherwise” (emphasis added). That is both wrong and baffling. Wrong, because federal “consent decrees are ‘not intended to operate in perpetuity.‘” Guajardo v. Tex. Dep‘t of Crim. Justice, 363 F.3d 392, 394 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Dowell, 498 U.S. at 237). Baffling, because a state does not champion “federalism” by trying to consign its supreme court elections to perpetual federal supervision.
It is of course true that “institutional reform injunctions often raise sensitive federalism concerns,” as they frequently “involve[] areas of core state responsibility.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 448; see also M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Abbott, 907 F.3d 237, 271 (5th Cir. 2018) (observing, for the same reason, that “institutional reform injunctions are disfavored” (citing Horne, 557 U.S. at 448)). But federalism is protected, not by overextending such injunctions, but by confining them to their proper scope.10 We do so
decree aimed to remedy alleged vote dilution in one supreme court district, not to reform the whole system. The present suit challenges a different part of that system the decree does not touch. The Eastern District‘s continuing jurisdiction to enforce the decree, whatever that amounts to, thus presents no jurisdictional impediment to the Middle District‘s hearing Plaintiffs’ suit.
Finally, Louisiana insists that—should Plaintiffs win—any remedy would inevitably conflict with the Chisom decree, putting the state “in the absurd position of having to disregard one court‘s orders to comply with another court‘s orders.” We disagree. Louisiana‘s argument again depends on its misreading the decree to control all seven districts. As explained, though, the decree substantively addressed only the eventual District 7. And even assuming some possible conflict between District 7 and a remedy in District 5, Louisiana cites no case showing such a possibility implicates a court‘s subject-matter jurisdiction. It only cites cases teaching that “comity” counsels one court to avoid interfering with another‘s jurisdiction.11 To be sure, if a proposed new district in this case sought to incorporate precincts in District 7, comity issues would obviously arise. But this interlocutory appeal involves subject-matter jurisdiction, not comity, and so the cases Louisiana cites are inapposite.
To these problems with Louisiana‘s argument, we add a more fundamental one: Louisiana “assume[s]” the three-decades-old Chisom decree is still in force, yet fails to explain why. The state‘s brief says only that the Eastern District “never relinquished jurisdiction” over Chisom; that, in the 2012 litigation over Justice Johnson‘s tenure, the court “disagreed” with Louisiana that the decree had lapsed; and that Louisiana is consequently “left no other option” than to “assume . . . [the] [d]ecree is still in effect today.” That is weak sauce.
Louisiana‘s argument glosses over what the Eastern District actually said in its 2012 order. The court interpreted the Chisom decree to give Justice Johnson tenure back to 1994. Chisom, 890 F. Supp. 2d at 711. So, it found the final remedy “has not yet been implemented” and retained jurisdiction ”until that final remedy is implemented.” Ibid. (emphases added). Since then nearly ten years have passed. In that time, Justice Johnson became Chief Justice and has now retired.12 In light of those developments, one might think the decree‘s final remedy has been implemented. But Louisiana has evidently never asked the Eastern District to vacate the decree.
In any event, we need not decide that question. Even assuming the Chisom decree still lives, it does not touch Plaintiffs’ VRA suit. So, the district court correctly ruled the decree did not oust it of jurisdiction.
IV.
The certified order is AFFIRMED.
ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:
In 2019, plaintiffs sued under the Voting Rights Act in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. It‘s undisputed that plaintiffs’ claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and hence the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under
jurisdiction that Congress conferred. The order denying Louisiana‘s motion to dismiss should be affirmed for that reason.