Could a Louisiana Supreme Court justice serve on the State Justice Institute board?

Plain-English summary

Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Bernette Joshua Johnson asked whether state law prevented her from serving on the State Justice Institute's board. The 1998 attorney general opinion found no state-law bar. The Institute was established as a private nonprofit, and board members served part time without compensation apart from expense reimbursement. Although the President appointed its directors with Senate consent, the office did not treat the board seat as a prohibited federal appointive office or federal employment under Louisiana's dual officeholding law.

The office also found no conflict between the justice's duties and the Institute's work. It viewed the board's role in cooperation between state and federal judiciaries as consistent with the law's purpose. Its conclusion addressed this Institute appointment, not every outside position a judge might hold.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. 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.

State judges at the time

The opinion said the described part-time, unpaid Institute board position did not violate Louisiana's dual officeholding prohibition for elected state officials.

Institute board members at the time

The office emphasized the Institute's private nonprofit status, the board's uncompensated service, and its judicial-cooperation purpose when analyzing the appointment.

Common questions

Q: Could a Louisiana Supreme Court justice join the State Justice Institute board?
A: The attorney general's office found no state law prohibiting Justice Johnson from serving in the position described.

Q: Did a presidential appointment make the board seat a federal office under the opinion?
A: No. The office said an Institute director was not a prohibited appointive office in the federal government for purposes of the Louisiana dual officeholding law.

Q: Was Institute board service a paid job?
A: The opinion said directors served without compensation except reimbursement of actual expenses, for three-year terms.

Q: Did the office decide that every nonprofit board seat was allowed for a judge?
A: No. It analyzed this specific Institute position, its purpose, and the duties of a Louisiana Supreme Court justice.

Background and statutory framework

The State Justice Institute board had eleven members, six of whom were judges, according to the request described in the opinion. The office discussed the Institute's private nonprofit status under 42 USC 10702 and its directors' status under 42 USC 10703. It then applied LSA-R.S. 42:63's restrictions on outside offices and employment held by elected state officials. The office relied in part on its earlier Opinion No. 90-379A, which had considered a part-time tribal magistrate appointment, while explaining the judicial-cooperation purpose of the Institute board.

Citations and references

• LSA-R.S. 42:63 (state dual officeholding restrictions)
• 42 USC 10702 (Institute establishment, as described in the opinion)
• 42 USC 10703 (board member status, as described in the opinion)
• Attorney General Opinion No. 90-379A (prior reasoning cited in the opinion)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/98-0242

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

One American Place
301 Main Street, Suite 600
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 94005
ClVlI. DIVISION
TEL.: (504) 342-7013
FAX: (504) 342-2090
BATON ROUGE
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

J U N E 2 41998

OPINION NUMBER 98-242

56 - Judges
78 - Officers - Dual Office Holding
Honorable Bernette Joshua Johnson
LSA-R.S. 42:63
Justice, Louisiana Supreme Court
301 Loyola Avenue
No state law prohibits a Supreme Court Justice from
New Odeans, LA 70112
serving on the Board of Directors for the State Justice
Institute.
Dear Justice Johnson:

This office is in receipt of your request for an opinion of the Attorney General in regard to membership on the Board of Directors on the State Justice Institute. You indicate the State Justice Institute Board consists of eleven members appointed by the President with consent of the Senate. Six (6) of the Directors must be judges, and the Conference of Chief Justices is responsible for submitting to the President three (3) nominees for each court position on the Board of Directors. You have been told that your name has been submitted to the President for one of the positions on the Board of Directors, and you have been directed to obtain an opinion from the Attorney General for Louisiana if there are any state laws which would prohibit you from serving.

We find that the State Justice Institute is established as a private nonprofit corporation in accordance with 42 USC 10702 to direct a national program of assistance designed to assure each person ready access to a fair and effective system of justice, foster coordination and cooperation with the Federal judiciary in areas of mutual concern, promote recognition of the importance of the separation of powers doctrine, and encourage education for judges and support personnel of State court systems. The members of the Board serve without compensation except for reimbursement of actual expenses for a three year term, and are not considered officers or employees of the United Stated under 42 USC 10703. The Board’s responsibilities include establishing policies, funding priorities, rules and regulations, and is required to award grants and enter into cooperative agreements and contracts on behalf of the Institute.

Pertinent to your inquiry are the state laws relative to the prohibitions of dual officeholding for a person holding an elective office in state government. We find LSA- R.S. 42:63 provides in Paragraph A that no person holding an elective office in any of the branches of state government shall at the same time hold, "another elective office, appointive office, or employment in the government of a foreign country, in the government of the United States, or in the government of another state," In Paragraph B, a person holding office in one branch of state government is prohibited from holding at the same time another office or employment in any other branch of "state

Page 2

Honorable Bernette Joshua Johnson
OPINION NUMBER 98-242
Page ~2~

government", and in Paragraph F, no person holding elective office in any branch of state government shall contract on full-time basis to provide health or health-related service for any agency of state government.

We do not find that any of these prohibitions relative to an elected state office would prevent you from also serving on the Board of Directors for the State Justice Institute.

Being a member of the Board would not constitute employment in the govemment of the United States or another branch of state government, and the prohibition in regard to contracts to provide health services has no application. However, more importantly, we do not find that a member of the Board of Directors for the State Justice Institute can be considered a prohibited "appointive office" in the government of the United States when the intent of the legislature is considered as reflected by the dual officeholding law when read as a whole.

We feel the intent of the dual officeholding statutes was not meant to extend to a part- time and uncompensated appointed position that is established with the intent of securing cooperation between the state and federal government. We find justification for this conclusion in the reasoning of Attorney General Opinion No. 90-379A, which found there was no prohibition in an elected City Court judge holding the part-time position as Chitimacha Indian Tribal Magistrate by appointment by the Chitimacha Indian Tribal Council. It was reasoned that as a matter of public policy, intergovernmental cooperation between the State and the governing bodies of federally recognized Indian Tribes located within the State is to be encouraged, and it was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted the dual officeholding law that it apply to part-time judicial positions existing within the governmental structure of a recognized Indian Tribe. Also, it was recognized while the purpose of the dual officeholding law was to instill a high level of confidence to prohibit public jobs with duties that conflict, it appeared there was no conflict between the duties and interest of the City Court Judge and Tribal Magistrate.

In the instant situation we also do not find a conflict in duties, and do find a policy of intergovernmental cooperation insofar as the purpose of the Institute includes encouragement of cooperation with the Federal judiciary in areas of mutual concern, to assure each person ready access to a fair and effective system of justice, and to educate state judges and personnel. Like the conclusion in Attorney General Opinion No. 90-379A, it is the opinion of this office that it was not the intent of the legislature when it enacted the Dual Officeholding Law that this law apply to a part-time uncompensated position by appointment to a Board by the President seeking cooperation between the state and federal judiciary.

Page 3

Honorable Bernette Joshua Johnson
OPINION NUMBER 98-242
Page ~3-

Therefore, we find no state law which would prohibit you from serving on the Board of Directors for the State Justice Institute.

I trust this sufficiently addresses your concerns. If our office may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By:
BARBARA B. RUTLEDGE
Assistant Attorney General

RPI:BBR:glb