JOHN FULLER v. STATE OF LOUISIANA JEFF LANDRY IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR ELIZABETH MURRILL IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL NANCY LANDRY IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE AND CHELSEY RICHARD NAPOLEON IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS (2026)

Motion for priority consideration granted. See Order.

PDG

JDH

JBM

CRC

Supreme Court of Louisiana July 17, 2026

ORDER

Considering the motion for priority consideration and supervisory jurisdiction filed by Applicant, John T. Fuller, it is hereby ORDERED that said motion is granted. Pursuant to its plenary supervisory jurisdiction, this Court hereby assumes jurisdiction over this matter. All proceedings in the lower courts are hereby stayed pending further order of this Court. The Attorney General and all interested parties shall file their oppositions or amicus briefs on or before July 23rd, 2026.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 17thday of July 2026.

FOR THE COURT:

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

While I have sometimes dissented when this court has exercised its supervisory jurisdiction in certain cases thereby allowing parties to bypass the appellate court,¹ I agree with the court's decision to do so in this case.

I have previously noted that this court has rarely taken up matters that bypassed the other courts and then only when there were significant issues needing immediate attention and the facts were stipulated or uncontested. Calhoun v. Landry, 25-00316, p. 2 (La. 3/18/25), 403 So.3d 521, 526 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting). Moreover, this court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction without exhaustion of ordinary remedies only under extraordinary circumstances. Scott v. Louisiana State Police, 24-1591, p. 1 (La. 1/9/25), 398 So.3d 634, 635 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting). This case clearly meets those standards. Importantly, this matter involves a strictly constitutional issue, resolution of which will affect the ability of candidates to qualify for office with a qualifying period beginning in less than three weeks. This case impacts the system of justice in New Orleans, and the parties and the voting public in Orleans Parish deserve an answer as soon as possible. Without final resolution of the issues by this court, legal uncertainty will affect and undermine the candidates and potentially the election results. Under these particular circumstances, where there are no facts to be developed in the district court, where both parties recognize the need to resolve this important constitutional issue expeditiously, and where this court's ruling has a direct impact on the ability of persons to qualify for office, I agree that exercise of this court's supervisory jurisdiction is proper even though all available remedies have not been exhausted in the lower courts. See Marionneaux v. Hines, 05-1191, pp. 4-5 (La. 5/12/05), 902 So.2d 373, 376-77 (noting the matter presented only a question of law which affects presently pending legislation and the conduct of the legislature during this session, as well as future legislative sessions, and recognizing absent a prompt response by this court, legislative actions now in progress may be invalid, thus spawning future litigation); see also State v. All Prop. & Cas. Ins. Carriers Authorized & Licensed To Do Bus. In State, 06-2030 (La. 8/25/06), 937 So.2d 313 (recognizing the “the issues presented were of an extraordinary nature, time-sensitive, and of such significant public interest that the court's plenary, supervisory jurisdiction should be exercised”).

I therefore concur in the order granting the motion for priority consideration and supervisory jurisdiction, favoring expedited resolution by this court under these unique circumstances. The chaotic conditions that would flow to the criminal justice system from a failure of this court to respond expeditiously demands a prompt final resolution only this court can provide.

Once again, this court takes the extraordinary action of exercising its plenary authority to call up a case prior to the matter being fully vetted through the lower courts. While the supposed purpose for so acting is the exigency and significance of the electoral process, this could easily be addressed by simply ordering the intermediate appellate court to expedite its review of the trial court's decision, which is not unprecedented in election matters. Shortened time frames are usually provided for the hearing and determination of election matters that allow for full review by the lower courts and this court within extremely shortened time frames. See La. R.S. 18:1409.

Therefore, consistent with the opinions expressed in the dissents in State v. Murrill, 26-00865 (La. 7/3/26), ___ So. 3d ____, 2026 WL 1984375 (Guidry, J. dissenting), Crockett v. State, 26-00594 (La. 5/14/26), ____ So. 3d _____, 2026 WL 1355605 (Guidry, J. dissenting), Calhoun v. Landry, 25-00316 (La. 3/18/25), 403 So. 3d 521, 527 (Guidry, J. dissenting), and Scott v. Louisiana State Police, 24-01591(La. 1/9/25), 398 So. 3d 634, 635 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting), I continue to believe that we should allow cases to be fully developed by the lower courts, require full briefing, and ensure fuller transparency and public scrutiny of our handling of these matters by allowing access to open courts through holding oral arguments. Again, any exigency is more properly addressed by this court through orders to the lower courts to expedite their review of these matters and to expedite their handling by this court once received. This will avoid the arbitrary and selective exercise of this court's plenary authority, which in return will promote public confidence in our final disposition of matters before us. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

FOOTNOTES

1.   See, e.g., Crockett v. State, 26-0594 (La. 5/10/26) (wherein I dissented from the stay issued by this court at the request of the Attorney General, which bypassed the appellate court. In that case, the election of the Orleans clerk of court had already occurred, thus there was no urgent need for this court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction); Calhoun v. Landry, 25-0316, p. 1 (La. 3/18/25), 403 So.3d 521, 525-27 (dissenting from the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction and summary dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims on the merits when an evidentiary hearing had not yet occurred and the election was already in process); Scott v. Louisiana State Police, 24-01591, p. 1 (La. 1/9/25), 398 So.3d 634, 635 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting) (noting there was no justification provided as to why the facts of the case merited circumvention of the normal appellate process, and noting the record had not yet been developed).

Weimer, C.J., concurs and assigns reasons. Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Burris, J., would deny the motion for priority consideration.