When Louisiana voters approved Constitutional Amendment No. 1 in December 2024 (Act No. 405, 2024 Reg. Sess.), they authorized two key changes to the state’s judicial oversight system:
- Structural change: The amendment added five political appointees to the Judiciary Commission—two appointed by the Speaker of the House, two by the President of the Senate, and one by the Governor—codified in La. Const. art. V, § 25(A)(4).
- Procedural expansion: The amendment allowed the Louisiana Supreme Court to direct the Judiciary Commission to initiate an investigation, in addition to acting on Commission recommendations, as set forth in La. Const. art. V, § 25(C).
While some saw the amendment as a modest update, others expressed concern that it might politicize or diminish the independence of the Judiciary Commission. Now, with the Supreme Court’s May 2025 revision to Rule XXIII, the scope and structure of judicial discipline have expanded even further—raising new questions about oversight, transparency, and separation of powers.
Key Differences Between the Constitutional Amendment and the Revised Rule XXIII
Broader Pathways to Investigation
While La. Const. art. V, § 25(C) permits investigations to begin upon Commission recommendation or Supreme Court directive, Revised Rule XXIII, § 3(a)(1) expands the initiation process significantly. Under the rule:
- Investigations may begin from complaints, Commission motions, news reports, or referrals from persons with an ethical duty to report misconduct.
- The Chief Executive Officer of the Commission may authorize preliminary inquiries based on information outside of formal complaints (e.g., media reports).
Anonymous Complaints Still Permitted
The ability to act on anonymous complaints predates the 2025 revisions and remains largely unchanged in Rule XXIII, § 3(a)(2):
- Anonymous complaints may be investigated if they state verifiable facts and the Chair of the Commission authorizes the inquiry.
- This maintains prior rule language while formally integrating it into the restructured Rule XXIII.
Expanded Role for the Supreme Court
The constitutional amendment allows the Court to initiate investigations, but the revised rule enhances this authority:
- Rule XXIII, § 3(a)(1) allows the Court to direct the Commission to initiate an investigation via sealed order.
- The Court may request confidential status updates from the Commission without receiving substantive details unless warranted (§ 3(b)).
- The Court can also review complainant appeals of dismissed cases and request internal written summaries explaining the Commission’s decisions (§ 3(c)(3)–(4), § 23(b)(12)).
Enhanced Access to Confidential Information
Revised Rule XXIII, § 23(b)(11)–(12) gives the Court explicit authority to:
- Receive confidential Commission records related to a judge’s prior or pending misconduct during appointment or interim disqualification deliberations.
- Incorporate these materials into its deliberative process, though they remain confidential unless the Court issues a formal order.
Interim Disqualification Process
The revised rule sets a structured process for interim disqualification:
- Rule XXIII, § 27(c) requires the Court to issue a show-cause order before acting on its own motion to impose interim disqualification.
- Both the judge and the Commission must have the opportunity to respond with supporting materials.
Cost Recovery for Disciplined Judges
New language in Rule XXIII, § 22(c)–(d) allows the Court to:
- Tax costs incurred for appointing pro tempore judges to cover the dockets of disqualified judges.
- Enforce cost judgments through garnishment, seizure, lien, or other legal mechanisms.
Conclusion
Although the 2024 constitutional amendment expanded the Court’s formal role in judicial discipline, the May 2025 revisions to Rule XXIII go further by:
- Widening the range of sources from which investigations can originate.
- Clarifying how anonymous tips and news reports are handled.
- Creating a feedback loop where the Court can receive and review confidential Commission materials at multiple stages.
- Formalizing a structure for complainant appeals and cost recovery.
Whether these changes ultimately improve judicial accountability or raise concerns about centralization and politicization is an open question. What’s clear is that Louisiana’s judicial discipline framework has been significantly transformed, and these developments deserve close monitoring by judges, lawyers, and the public.
