by Julie O’Donoghue, Louisiana Illuminator
June 12, 2025

Two members of the Louisiana Public Defender Oversight Board have resigned just 14 months into what were supposed to be four-year terms on the new governing body Gov. Jeff Landry created. 

Freddie Pitcher Jr., a former state appellate judge in Baton Rouge who also ran Southern University’s law school, and Shreveport attorney Ted Hernandez are leaving the board. Their decisions to step down come shortly before the board expects to have a contentious vote Monday about the dismissal of five attorneys who run local public defender offices. 

Pitcher, who Landry appointed to the board, said he is leaving because he is having personal issues that have been exacerbated by the board having “too much drama.” Hernandez, who was Senate President Cameron Henry’s appointee, sent a short resignation letter to Landry at the end of last month.

“Serving on the board has been a learning experience,” wrote Hernandez, who could not be reached Wednesday by phone or email for additional comment.

The nine-member board helps supervise Louisiana’s sprawling public defense system with 37 local offices and approximately 850 attorneys. Public defenders represent 146,000 people annually and 88% of all criminal defendants in Louisiana.

Last year, Landry pushed through a controversial change in state law that dissolved the previous state public defender board and replaced it with the current, weaker version over which the governor has more influence. 

State Public Defender Rémy Starns lobbied Landry for the new board after clashing over policy with the previous one. Starns has been the leader of the public defender system since former Gov. John Bel Edwards appointed him in 2020. Landry and the newly-formed board agreed last year to keep him in the position. 

Yet the new board and Starns have had some of the same disagreements he had with the old board.

The new board has voted down Starns’ proposals to reduce the pay of most chief public defenders who run local offices and incentivize some to operate part-time, private law practices on top of their state responsibilities. He also wanted to offer additional money to chiefs who agreed to represent more clients personally in court. 

In February, Starns caused controversy when he told five chief public defenders who run local offices they would be losing their jobs on July 1 after their state contracts expire. The attorneys have appealed those terminations to the board, which is expected to decide Monday whether they will be terminated.

The chief public defenders affected are Michelle AndrePont in Caddo Parish, Brett Brunson in Natchitoches Parish, Deirdre Fuller in Rapides Parish, Trisha Ward of Evangeline Parish and John Hogue, who works in Tensas, Madison and East Carroll parishes. 

All five have been among the most critical of Starns’ policies in public. Over the past few years, they have testified at legislative hearings and public defender board meetings to oppose Starns’ efforts to remake the public defender board and curb their pay. They argue Starns targeted them for dismissal because they have spoken out against him.

“If in fact these terminations are due in whole or in part to the participation of these District Defenders in the legislative process or Board meetings, then it is beyond question that the independence of the indigent defense function is under attack,” wrote Stephen Haedicke, an attorney representing the lawyers.

Starns did not respond to phone calls and text messages asking for comment Wednesday.

A special subcommittee of the public defender board has recommended the board uphold Starns’ decision to fire the attorneys. It concluded Starns had the authority not to renew the public defender chiefs’ one-year contracts.

“Mr. Starns had no obligation to enter into new contracts with these defenders,” Paul deMahy, a retired state court judge and board member who chaired the subcommittee, wrote in a memo last month.

Pitcher also sat on the subcommittee and said his perspective was more nuanced. He agreed with deMahy that Starns had the legal authority to dismiss the five attorneys, but he wanted to recommend that the governor keep them in their jobs anyway.

“He has a technical win there. But from a moral standpoint, they should have their jobs back,” Pitcher said Wednesday. 

The attorneys are also challenging the subcommittee’s recommendation by saying an April hearing on the dismissals violated the state’s public notice and open meetings laws for government entities.

While the review of the attorneys’ terminations was taking place over the last two months, Starns had also asked the Louisiana Legislature to approve two more bills that would have increased his authority further. The legislation stalled, however, after state lawmakers expressed concern Starns was trying to work around the new public defender board set up just last year.

Starns is also asking the 30-plus remaining chief public defenders who run local offices to waive their rights to challenge their dismissal and compensation if they want to keep their jobs, according to a copy of the contract provided by a public defender, who asked not to be named because of fear of retaliation. 

The new one-year contracts Starns has sent to chief public defenders require the attorneys to forgo the compensation plan the public defender oversight board set for one Starns has implemented. He would also be able to fire them at any time without cause with 30 days notice, and the attorneys would no longer be able to appeal to the board for a reversal of that decision.

The agreements kick in on July 1.

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.

The post ‘Too much drama’: Louisiana public defender board members resign after 14 months appeared first on lailluminator.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article reports on the tensions within Louisiana’s public defender system, highlighting conflicts involving Governor Jeff Landry’s influence and State Public Defender Rémy Starns’ controversial decisions. The coverage is critical of the concentration of power and the dismissal of public defenders who oppose policy changes, emphasizing concerns about the independence of indigent defense. While largely factual, the article’s framing leans toward skepticism of the current administration’s moves and shows sympathy for the public defenders challenging these changes. The tone and focus suggest a center-left perspective that advocates for government accountability and protection of public defense rights.

SUMMARY: Louisiana’s legislative session is ending with criticism over inadequate action on rising homeowners insurance costs, a major concern especially near the coast. While some reforms targeting auto insurance passed, few measures addressed homeowners insurance. Tax credits for fortified roofs and funding for the roof program were approved, but a bill offering tax credits to low-income homeowners failed. Housing advocates urge faster, more effective programs as many face eviction or foreclosure amid a worsening insurance crisis now about five years old. Critics say lawmakers have done little this year to ease the burden on homeowners, despite ongoing struggles.

Skyrocketing premiums have been pushed onto tenants and some families have been forced to leave the state.

Source

by Ashley Murray, Louisiana Illuminator
June 11, 2025

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s emergency tariffs can go forward while the administration fights to overturn a lower court’s trade decision that ruled the global import taxes unlawful, according to a U.S. appeals court order late Tuesday.

The two cases filed by a handful of private businesses and a dozen Democratic state attorneys general will be consolidated and heard by a full panel of active circuit court judges in July, according to the four-page order from the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit.

Democratic state attorneys general who brought the suit represent Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon.

The court “concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,” according to the order.

A hearing is scheduled for July 31 in Washington, D.C.

Trump rocked global markets when he imposed the wide-reaching levies on nearly every country on April 2 under an unprecedented use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA. The president walked them back just seven days later, announcing a 90-day pause on staggering tariffs that reached nearly 50% on some major U.S. trading partners.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck down Trump’s emergency tariffs May 28. The following day, the appeals court temporarily restored the tariffs. 

Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.

The post Trump’s tariffs to stay in place while legal fight goes on, appeals court orders appeared first on lailluminator.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

This content presents a factual news report centered around actions taken by former President Donald Trump and the legal challenges to his emergency tariffs. The tone is mostly neutral, providing specific details from court orders and government actions without overt editorializing. The inclusion of criticisms from Democratic state attorneys general and references to market reactions are balanced with court decisions supporting Trump’s tariffs, portraying a viewpoint that leans slightly toward a center-right perspective due to the focus on Trump’s policy and legal victories without strong partisan language.