Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Sovereignty Consent Decrees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee backs bill giving governor and attorney general new say over long-term federal consent decrees
Summary
The Senate Committee on Judiciary C reported House Bill 64 with amendments after proponents said it would protect state sovereignty and opponents warned it could undermine civil-rights enforcement and local autonomy.
Speaker Pro Tem presented House Bill 64 on behalf of the governor and attorney general, saying the measure would require notice to, and approval by, the governor and attorney general before entering consent judgments that impose long-term federal oversight on state agencies.
The bill’s author told the committee the measure “is about defending Louisiana’s right to govern and protecting our sovereignty against federal overreach,” and that amendments clarify the change would not block routine settlements. He said the bill is intended to prevent consent decrees that “tie the hands of our state for a long time after the people have chosen new leadership.”
Charles Phipps, senior director for policy, advocacy and legal affairs at the Urban League of Louisiana, testified in opposition, saying, “This bill is a dangerous overreach that politicizes legal decision making, undermines local governance, and jeopardizes civil rights protections under federal law.” Phipps warned the language could be used to challenge long-standing consent decrees addressing desegregation, police reform and other civil-rights matters.
Larry Freeman, chief deputy attorney general, told the committee the changes will not waive attorney–client privilege if the attorney general intervenes in a matter: “I don’t think it’s gonna affect attorney client privilege,” Freeman said. The committee adopted amendment set 27‑13, which the author said narrows the bill so it does not interfere with routine settlements and focuses the proposal on long-term federal obligations.
Senators debated whether the amendment sufficiently protected local decision-making. Senator Barrow and others said they still had concerns about potential added costs to taxpayers and whether the attorney general’s expanded role would create friction with elected local officials. Senator Hodges moved and the committee reported the bill with amendments.
The committee record shows a mix of support from the attorney general’s office and the governor’s counsel and opposition from civil‑rights groups including the Urban League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Legal Defense Fund.
