Did the disability retirement offset in La. R.S. 11:221 violate the constitution?

Plain-English summary

Representative Errol Romero asked whether the offset to disability retirement benefits required by La. R.S. 11:221 was constitutional. The Louisiana Attorney General answered yes, based on the rule that a statute is presumed valid and on the office's statement that it knew of no court decision declaring this provision unconstitutional.

The opinion did not calculate an offset, identify a particular retiree, or analyze a specific constitutional provision as applied to the statute. Its answer rests on the presumption of constitutionality and the absence of a known judicial declaration against La. R.S. 11:221.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What did the AG say about the disability retirement offset?

The office concluded in 2006 that the offset mandated by La. R.S. 11:221 was constitutional. It said it was unaware of a judicial declaration affecting the statute's presumed validity.

Who would have had to prove a constitutional challenge?

The opinion said the party attacking a statute had the burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, a violation of a specific constitutional provision. It did not apply that burden to an identified lawsuit.

Did a court decide the validity of this offset in the opinion?

No. This was an Attorney General opinion responding to a legislator. The office expressly said it knew of no judicial declaration affecting the presumed constitutionality of La. R.S. 11:221.

Background and statutory framework

The request concerned the statutory offset in La. R.S. 11:221 for disability retirees. The AG cited Louisiana decisions for two propositions: legislative enactments are presumed constitutional, and a challenger bears a heavy evidentiary burden. The office did not describe the offset formula or decide an individual's benefit amount.

Citations

• La. R.S. 11:221 (the disability retirement offset at issue).
• State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140 (La. 1983); Moore v. RLCC Technologies, Inc., 95-2621 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1135; Faul v. Trahan, 1998-488 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/98) 718 So.2d 1081, 1087 (presumption of constitutionality).
• Board of Directors of La. Recovery District v. All Taxpayers, et al, 529 So.2d 384 (La. 1988) (challenger's burden, as cited by the opinion).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/06-0154

Original opinion text

August 28, 2006
OPINION NUMBER 06-0154

15-A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Hon. Errol “Romo” Romero
La. R.S. 11:221
State Representative
Statutes are presumed constitutional unless declared
District 48
otherwise by the judiciary.
300 Iberia Street, Suite A-326
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560-4543

Dear Rep. Romero:

You requested an Attorney General’s opinion regarding the constitutionality of statutory offsets to disability retirees. You question whether the offset mandated by La. R.S. 11:221 is constitutional.

First, we note that all statutes are presumed to be constitutional. The Louisiana Legislature is presumed to have intended to enact a constitutionally valid law. State v. Manuel, 426 So.2d 140 (La. 1983). It is well established that all statutory enactments are presumed constitutional and every presumption of law and fact must be indulged in favor of legality. Moore v. RLCC Technologies, Inc., 95-2621 (La.2/28/96), 668 So.2d 1135; Faul v. Trahan, 1998-488 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/98) 718 So.2d 1081, 1087.

A party who attacks the constitutionality of a statute bears a heavy burden, and he must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the statute violates a specific constitutional provision. Board of Directors of La. Recovery District v. All Taxpayers, et al, 529 So.2d 384 (La. 1988). We are unaware of any judicial declaration affecting the presumed constitutionality of R.S. 11:221. Therefore, this office is of the opinion that statutory offsets to disability retirees, as mandated by La. R.S. 11:221, are constitutional.

Trusting this adequately responds to your request, we remain

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: _________
KENNETH L. ROCHE, III
Assistant Attorney General
CCF, JR/KLR, III/crt

Page 2

Opinion Number 06-0154

15-A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

La. R.S. 11:221

Statutes are presumed constitutional unless declared otherwise by the judiciary.

Hon. Errol “Romo” Romero
State Representative
District 48
300 Iberia Street, Suite A-326
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560-4543

Date Received:

Date Released: August 28, 2006

Kenneth L. Roche, III
Assistant Attorney General