ANDREW BRADLEY TOWBIN v. JOHN FULLER AND DARREN LOMBARD IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS (2026)

Application for reconsideration granted. Original judgment affirmed. See per curiam.

CRC

JLW

JBM

PDG

Supreme Court of Louisiana March 31, 2026

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2026-C-00296

ANDREW BRADLEY TOWBIN

VS.

JOHN T. FULLER AND DARREN P. LOMBARD IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS

On Application for Rehearing/Reconsideration

PER CURIAM *

On March 19, 2026, Applicant, Andrew Bradley Towbin, filed an Application for Rehearing and/or Reconsideration of this Court's March 11, 2026 Per Curiam opinion, which reversed the rulings of the lower courts, overruled the objection to candidacy, and ordered that John T. Fuller remain on the ballot for the May 16, 2026 election for the office of Judge, Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Section J. Towbin v. Fuller, 26-C-0296 (La. 3/11/26), 2026 WL 763178.¹ Contemporaneously, Applicant filed a Motion to Recuse Associate Justice Jefferson D. Hughes, III.

Applicant contends that Justice Hughes should have recused himself from participating in the original writ consideration and disposition of this matter because Justice Hughes was a party plaintiff in pending defamation litigation adverse to Applicant's counsel, Scott L. Sternberg, and his firm, Sternberg, Naccari & White, LLC.² Applicant further contends that the Court's merits determination was erroneous, and requests that this Court order merits briefing and oral argument. Applicant urges that Justice Hughes’ participation in the original writ disposition constitutes “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to warrant reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 1.

Pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:1409(I) and Supreme Court Rule IX, Section 1, generally, no application for rehearing may be filed in an election case. Reconsideration, however, is available upon a showing of “extraordinary circumstances.” La. Sup. Ct. R. IX, § 1. The fact that Justice Hughes should not have participated in the original writ consideration and disposition does constitute such extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, reconsideration by the remainder of this Court is warranted and is hereby granted.

Following the filing of the application for reconsideration, Justice Hughes voluntarily recused himself from further participation in this matter. That self-recusal renders moots Applicant's motion to recuse. The request for oral argument is denied.

Upon reconsideration by the remaining members of this Court, and for the reasons expressed in the original Per Curiam opinion, the Court declines to modify its original determination: Respondent John T. Fuller is not disqualified as a candidate for the office of Judge for Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Section J, and shall remain on the ballot for the May 16, 2026 election.

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING DENIED; RECONSIDERATION GRANTED; MOTION TO RECUSE DENIED AS MOOT; REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT DENIED; RELIEF DENIED.

I dissent from the portion of the majority's opinion declining to modify its original determination that John T. Fuller is not disqualified as a candidate for the office of Judge for Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Section J, and shall remain on the ballot for the May 16, 2026 election for the reasons previously assigned by Justice Pro Tempore Penzato in the original action.

PENZATO, JUSTICE PRO TEMPORE, dissents in part for the reasons previously assigned.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Judge Allison H. Penzato of the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, appointed as Justice pro tempore, sitting for the vacancy in the First District.

1.   Chief Justice Weimer, Justice Griffin, and Justice Cole each concurred and assigned reasons. Justice Guidry dissented. Justice Penzato, sitting pro tempore, dissented and assigned reasons.

2.   While Justices diligently endeavor to self-recuse when necessary, considering this Court's extensive case load and that an election case is required to be considered as a priority and resolved promptly, it is worth emphasizing that a party desiring a justice's recusal “shall” file a written motion pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 157(A). This obligation is statutorily placed on the litigants for good reason. The members of this Court will not always be made aware of what attorneys are involved in a case, particularly when it is being considered as a priority outside of normal protocols.

Guidry, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons. Penzato, J., dissents in part and assigns reasons. Hughes, J., recused.