Charles Branton v. Parish Of St. Tammany And St. Tammany Parish Council

Supreme Court of Louisiana
December 07, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
CHARLES BRANTON
VS.
PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY AND ST.
TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL
No. 2021-CC-01743
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Parish of St. Tammany - Applicant Defendant; St. Tammany Parish Council
- A
pplicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari, Parish of St. Tammany,
22nd Judicial District Court Number(s) 2021-12846 c/w 2021 -12868, Court of
Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2021-CW-1295;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 29, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
11/29/2021 "See News Release 047 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2021-CC-1743
CH
ARLES BRANTON
V.

PARI
SH OF ST. TAMMANY AND ST. TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL
C
onsolidated With
J
OHN G. RAYMOND
V.
PARI
SH OF ST. TAMMANY AND ST. TAMMANY PARISH COUNCIL
On
Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit,
Parish of St. Tammany
PE
R CURIAM
T
his matter involves Act 362 of the 2021 legislative session (“Act 362”),
which authorized a referendum election to allow the voters in St. Tammany Parish
to decide whether to legalize a riverboat casino in Slidell. The referendum election
is currently set for December 11, 2021.
Plaintiff, John G. Raymond, seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against St.
Tammany Parish and the St. Tammany Parish Council (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the “Parish”), alleging Act 362 was unconstitutionally enacted.
Therefore, he sought to enjoin the election from being held.
In response, the Parish filed an exception of prematurity, asserting the district
court should exercise judicial restraint and permit the election to proceed.
After a hearing, the district court sustained the Parish’s exception of
prematurity as to the request for injunctive relief, but retained jurisdiction over the
request for declaratory relief.
11/29/21

2

Upon plaintiff’s application for supervisory review, a majority of the court of
appeal reversed and held plaintiff “may petition the court for an injunction prior t o
the election, the merits of which should be determined prior to the election.” One
judge dissented, explaining, “[i]f the vote for the proposition fails, the issue is moot.”
The Parish then applied to this court. We stayed all proceedings and now
exercise our plenary supervisory authority to review the rulings of the lower courts.
In reversing the district court’s ruling, the majority of the court of appeal relied
on certain dicta in Premier Games, Inc. v. State , 99-1297 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/7/99),
739 So.2d 852 (per curiam), writs denied, 99 -1710, 99 -1679 (La. 6/14/99), 745
So.2d 15, 604, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1062 (1999), in which the appellate court
suggested plaintiffs should have sought a pre-election injunction rather than seeking
to nullify the election after it occurred. However, a careful examination of Premier
shows the plaintiffs in that case alleged they were aggrieved by a provision which
they claimed impacted their First Amendment right to participate in the election.
Although plaintiffs in the instant case challenge the constitutionality of Act 362, they
do not allege the Act places any improper limitations on their rights to participate in
the upcoming election. Under these circumstances, we find the court of appeal’s
reliance on Premier was misplaced.
1
Our jurisprudence has consistently held that courts should refrain from
reaching or determining the constitutionality of legislation unless, in the context of
a particular case, the resolution of this issue is essential to the decision of the case or
controversy. Cat's Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Dep't of Fin., 98-
0601 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So. 2d 1186, 1199; Louisiana Associated Gen.
Contractors, Inc. v. New Orleans Aviation Bd ., 97-0752 (La. 10/31/97), 701 So.2d
130; Cameron Parish Sch. Bd. v. Acands, Inc., 96-0895 (La. 1/14/97), 687 So.2d 84;

1 Similarly, we find the court of appeal erred in relying on certain language in our opinion in
Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm'n, 94- 2015 (La. 11/30/94), 646
So. 2d 885, 888, n.4. That case is factually distinguishable.

3

White v. West Carroll Hosp., Inc., 613 So.2d 150 (La. 1992). In determining whether
a constitutional issue is ripe for determination, we have focused on two elements:
(1) the hardship to the parties if a court does not decide; and (2) the fitness of the
issues for decision. Matherne v. Gray Ins. Co., 95-0975 (La. 10/16/95), 661 So. 2d
432, 435 (citing Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct.
1507, 1515 -1516, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967) ). In explaining the need for judicial
restraint in addressing constitutional challenges, w e have also observed that “ there
is a possibility that if the court waits for an actual controversy, the whole
constitutional problem may be eliminated by later developments. ” Ring v. State,
Dep't of Transp. & Dev. , 2002 -1367 (La. 1/14/03), 835 So. 2d 423, 427-28;
Matherne, 661 So.2d at 436.
In the case at bar , we find plaintiff will suffer no significant hardship if the
election proceeds prior to a hearing on his constitutional challenge. We further find
the question of fitness of review must await the outcome of the election, as the
dispute over the constitutionality of Act 362 could be rendered moot by the results
of the referendum. Post-election review of plaintiff’s constitutional challenge will
serve to properly balance the role of the courts to both respect legislative enactments
and a t the same time seek to provide substantial remedies to wrongly aggrieved
persons. Ring, 835 So. 2d 423, 427; Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v.
Connick, 94-3161 (La. 3/9/95), 654 So.2d 1073, 1076.
Accordingly, we find the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s request
for injunctive relief as premature. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of
plaintiff’s arguments, we find his constitutional challenge to Act 362 is appropriately
addressed after the election. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the court
of appeal and reinstate the judgment of the district court.

4

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the court of appeal is reversed, and the judgment of the district court is
reinstated. The November 24, 2021 stay order is lifted, and the case is remanded to
the district court for further proceedings. Any rehearing application shall be filed
no later than five days from the date of this judgment.