RAYMOND SCOTT ET AL v. LOUISIANA STATE POLICE ET AL (2025)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

JDH

JTK

WJC

Supreme Court of Louisiana January 09, 2025

01/09/25

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-CD-01591

RAYMOND SCOTT, ET AL.

VS.

LOUISIANA STATE POLICE, ET AL.

On Supervisory Writ to the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans Civil

PER CURIAM:

Relators, the Louisiana State Police and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, invoke our supervisory jurisdiction to review a December 13, 2024 judgment of the district court enjoining relators from taking action to clear homeless encampments on public property in the City of New Orleans. Considering, the interests of judicial economy, the need to provide a definitive resolution of this issue and the possibility of a constitutional infringement, we elect to exercise our plenary supervisory authority under La. Const. Art. V, § 5(a). See Unwired Telecom Corp. v. Par. of Calcasieu, 2003-0732, p. 8 (La. 1/19/05), 903 So. 2d 392, 400 (explaining “the constitutional grant of supervisory authority to this court is plenary, unfettered by jurisdictional requirements, and exercisable at the complete discretion of the court”); see also Mellor v. Parish of Jefferson, 2022-01713 (La. 9/1/23), 370 So. 3d 388, 391 (explaining this court may exercise its plenary authority “based on the possibility of a constitutional infringement”).

Article VI, § 9(B) of the Louisiana Constitution, entitled “Limitations of Local Governmental Subdivisions,” provides “[n]otwithstanding any provision of this Article, the police power of the state shall never be abridged.” We have recognized this article was added to the constitution as a counterbalance to ensure that the powers granted to home rule governments would not be used to deprive the state government of its inherent powers. Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 2000-1132 (La. 4/3/01), 785 So. 2d 1, 14. This section has also been characterized as “a positive reaffirmance of the supremacy of the state's police power.” Lafourche Parish Council v. Autin, 94–0985, p. 18 (La.12/9/94), 648 So.2d 343, 357.

The district court's December 13, 2024 judgment places restraints on relators by requiring them to comply with certain provisions of the Code of the City of New Orleans and invoke “judicial process” before acting. It is clear this judgment improperly interferes with the State's exercise of its constitutionally authorized police powers under La. Const. Art. VI, § 9(B). Accordingly, the injunction is invalid on its face and must be dissolved.

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. It is ordered that the motions of the Louisiana State Police, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to dissolve the temporary restraining orders are granted. It is further ordered that the December 13, 2024 judgment issuing a preliminary injunction against the Louisiana State Police and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, is reversed, and the injunction is immediately dissolved.

I respectfully dissent from the court's decision to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to bypass the court of appeal's appellate review of the issues presented in this case. Rather than short circuit the normal appellate process, I would remand this matter to the court of appeal for expedited briefing, arguments and decision.

While the constitutional grant of supervisory authority to this court is plenary, unfettered by jurisdictional requirements, and exercisable at the complete discretion of the court, such authority is not to be exercised lightly. Unwired Telecom Corp. v. Parish of Calcasieu, 03-0732, p. 8-9 (La. 1/19/05), 903 So.2d 392, 400. Rather, “out of respect for the independence of the other courts in the determination of questions confined to their judicial discretion, and to avoid usurping ․ appellate jurisdiction not conferred upon [this court] by the constitution,” Id., this court will exercise its supervisory jurisdiction without exhaustion of ordinary remedies only under extraordinary circumstances. The majority's summary disposition of this matter certainly does not clarify why the facts of this case merit circumvention of the normal appellate process, and I find no compelling reasons for such. Thus, rather than act summarily, and without the benefit of either the official district court record or the court of appeal's considered review, I would remand this matter to the court of appeal for expedited consideration. The rather cursory order issued by the majority creates more questions than it answers.

On November 22, 2024, the State Police began posting and distributing “Notice to Vacate” signs and flyers to persons who were living on public property in unauthorized homeless encampments. The notices explained that camping at those locations violates state law, requested the persons to vacate within 24 hours or risk possible legal action, and provided them with a list of resources for assistance as well as help relocating them. On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs sought a TRO, alleging the State would continue to relocate homeless persons before various events (specifically, the 11/30/24 Bayou Classic, 1/1/25 Sugar Bowl, 2/9/25 Super Bowl and Mardi Gras, 3/4/25).

Plaintiffs accuse the State of prioritizing the “aesthetic comfort” of tourists over the rights of those who have established homeless encampments on State property. The State is further accused of preparing for “tourism generating events” that attract national attention.

This case is not about keeping New Orleans beautiful; it is about public safety and health. This truth should be self-evident in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Bourbon Street in the early hours of New Year's Day, 2025. There is no absolute constitutional right to imperil public health and safety.

At the heart of this writ application is Plaintiffs’ contention that the State must yield to a municipal ordinance and act within the constraints of rules established by the City of New Orleans. The trial court's judgment necessarily dictates mandatory compliance by the State with the requirements of a City ordinance. Ironically, as the very existence of the encampments proves, Plaintiffs demand compliance with an ordinance that has been hitherto un-enforced by the City.

Both the State and Plaintiffs acknowledge that the State Police have the legal and constitutional power to clear the encampments within the bounds of constitutional law. Therefore, the preliminary injunction unconstitutionally interferes with the police powers of the State of Louisiana, under Louisiana Constitution Article, VI, section 9 (B), and should be dissolved.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., concurs and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer. Guidry, J., dissents.