Allen v. Louisiana
| Decision Date | 17 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-30734,20-30734 |
| Citation | 14 F.4th 366 |
| Parties | Anthony ALLEN ; Stephanie Anthony; Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. State of LOUISIANA ; R. Kyle Ardoin, Secretary of State of Louisiana in his official capacity, Defendants—Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Alec Winfield Farr, Jennifer Kies Mammen, Adam L. Shaw, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, L.L.P., Jon Marshall Greenbaum, Esq., Director, Jennifer Nwachukwu, Ezra D. Rosenberg, Esq., Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, Arthur Ray Thomas, Esq., Arthur R. Thomas & Associates, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Shae Gary McPhee, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General, Louisiana Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, New Orleans, LA, Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, Phillip Michael Gordon, Jonathan Lienhard, Jason Brett Torchinsky, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, P.L.L.C., Haymarket, VA, for Defendant-Appellant State of Louisiana.
Celia Rhea Cangelosi, Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, Shae Gary McPhee, Jr., Assistant Solicitor General, Louisiana Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, New Orleans, LA, Phillip Michael Gordon, Jonathan Lienhard, Jason Brett Torchinsky, Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak, P.L.L.C., Haymarket, VA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before Davis, Duncan, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
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 that reading for good reason: it is plainly wrong.
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.
The seven members of the Louisiana Supreme Court are currently elected from these seven single-member districts:
See LA. S. CT. , Maps of Judicial Districts , https://www.lasc.org/About/MapsofJudicialDistricts (last visited Aug. 24, 2021).
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, 52 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq . ("VRA").1 See generally Brnovich v. Democratic Nat'l Comm. , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2321, 2330–33, 210 L.Ed.2d 753 (2021). They allege Louisiana's demography would support two majority-black districts. But Louisiana has only one—District 7—created as a result of the " Chisom decree," a 1992 consent decree arising out of prior VRA litigation.2 Plaintiffs thus seek to create a second majority-black district, alleging it could be drawn in District 5, which includes East Baton Rouge Parish and surrounding parishes.
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, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 104 L.Ed.2d 835 (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 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ; Fed. R. App. P. 5(a).
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 is a district court's ruling on subject-matter jurisdiction, Laufer v. Mann Hospitality, L.L.C. , 996 F.3d 269, 271 (5th Cir. 2021). And a "district court's interpretation of the terms of a consent decree ... is reviewed de novo ." Walker v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urb. Dev. , 912 F.2d 819, 825 (5th Cir. 1990) ; see also Frew v. Janek , 820 F.3d 715, 723 (5th Cir. 2016) (same).
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.
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 LA. REV. STAT. § 13:101 (1975). The suit was brought under the VRA on behalf of black Orleans Parish voters, who claimed the at-large district unlawfully diluted black votes in majority-black Orleans Parish.
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.
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial