Barbier ruled essentially that the state’s simple changes
in law (to passages concerning outlets serving regular content alcoholic
beverages, and the same wording in the section detailing service of low-content
booze) were “overbroad,” or that the incidental restriction on alleged First
Amendment freedoms be no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that
interest. In particular, he noted spillover effects to other venues of
expression, and recommended small changes to the law to eliminate what he saw
as a problem.
However, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, first through a three-member panel and then its entire membership assenting to that panel’s decision, thought Barbier had given insufficient weight to official statements from administrators and legislative intent that the limit would apply only to establishments with alcoholic beverage permits. It concluded that, while officials come and go as Barbier noted, jurisprudence pointed to deference to the state in these matters and that future courts would have access to this intent if any attempt came about to apply the law elsewhere.
On other parts of the case, it agreed with the district
court: the state had proven its solution – raising the age limit – related to a
matter of some concern that government had the power to address. And under-21
dancers, if they wished to express themselves through near-nudity (Louisiana
law prohibits entire nudity), they had the option of performing in clubs that
didn’t serve alcohol.
Also, Landry notched a win when the state’s First
Circuit Court of Appeals overturned
a decision that would have let the firm that employed Larry Bankston sue
him for not allowing Bankston’s hiring to serve as a local government’s
counsel. Landry would not sign off on the deal, required under state law,
hinting that Bankston’s checkered past that included a felony conviction and past
disbarment should disqualify him from this position of trust. The Court
dismissed the claim in stating no controversy existed as under state law
Bankston could not sue Landry for the performance of this duty.
Upholding the age limit can reduce the crime of
trafficking, which benefits all citizens, but particularly those who could become
victims. And with dismissal of Bankston’s claim, Landry’s rejection of his
employment sends the proper message that elected officials – Bankston served as
a state senator when he committed his crimes – should not expect even after
making their penance to regain the privilege of wielding public authority,
which may make them think twice about acting corruptly.
However, Landry didn’t do so well by taxpayers
this week when state district judge William Morvant ruled his office had to
fork over $25,000 in legal fees because he didn’t respond quickly enough to a
nuisance public records request. Although the judge sympathized with Landry,
noting that “To say this was a rather broad and almost overly burdensome
request would be an understatement,” while declining to impose civil penalties
he did put taxpayers on the hook for attorney costs.
Unfortunately, Landry’s office didn’t invoke R.S. 44:33 upon
receiving the request, which allows government to defer when “segregating the
record would be unreasonably burdensome or expensive … the official shall so
state in writing and shall state the location of the requested record,” as
perhaps Morvant or higher courts would have agreed. Otherwise, Landry might
have batted 1.000 on big cases in early 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment