A critical case now before the Louisiana Supreme Court will determine whether local communities retain the authority to make their own land use decisions or whether courts can substitute their judgment for that of elected officials and planning commissions. The outcome will profoundly affect economic development across Louisiana.
At issue is a Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal decision that overturned the unanimous approval by St. James Parish’s Planning Commission and Parish Council of a modest industrial upgrade: an ethane pipeline connection that would boost production at an existing facility. The trial court upheld the local approvals, but the Fifth Circuit reversed, applying
an improper “de novo” standard of review that allowed the court to re-examine the Parish’s land use ordinance from scratch rather than defer to local officials’ interpretation.
This may sound like weedy legal terminology, but the implications are enormous. For decades, Louisiana law has granted local governments broad authority over zoning and land use, subject only to deferential judicial review. Courts are supposed to overturn local decisions only if they are “arbitrary or capricious” – a high bar that respects the expertise and
democratic legitimacy of local officials who understand their communities best. Furthermore, the elected St. James Council, representing the will of the people of St. James, can be held to account at the ballot box by their constituents
The Fifth Circuit’s decision abandons this deferential standard, instead inviting judges to micromanage local land use decisions. This approach conflicts with Louisiana statutory law, established Supreme Court precedent, and sound public policy principles supporting local self-governance. It effectively allows any parish resident to launch a collateral attack on planning decisions through litigation, even after those decisions have been made through proper democratic processes.
From a free-market perspective, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is particularly troubling. Predictable, stable regulatory frameworks are essential for economic growth. Businesses need to know that when they work in good faith with local authorities, obtain required approvals, and invest millions of dollars based on those approvals, courts won’t later reverse those decisions based on technical reinterpretations of local ordinances.
The case currently pending at the state Supreme Court illustrates the problem perfectly. After receiving unanimous approval in July 2023 and obtaining all required permits, construction on the expansion began in February 2024. The ethane pipeline was completed and commissioned by June 2024 and has operated successfully since. Yet now, more than a year after construction began, the project faces legal jeopardy because a court second-guessed the Parish’s reasonable interpretation of its own ordinance.
This uncertainty deters investment. Why would companies commit resources to Louisiana if local approvals can be overturned months or years later? The
Fifth Circuit’s precedent opens the door to endless litigation, delays, and costs that will discourage both existing businesses from expanding and new businesses from locating in Louisiana.
Attorney General Liz Murrill has also weighed in, noting the “coordinated effort, largely funded by out-of-state activists” behind this litigation. Indeed, the plaintiffs, represented by Tulane’s Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of RISE St. James, Inclusive Louisiana, and Mount Triumph Baptist Church, receive significant funding from the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, which Influence Watch identifies as an organization that “seeks to stop the building and expansion of any energy producing company or pipeline.”
Whatever one’s views on industrial development, the proper venue for these debates is the democratic process of planning commission hearings, parish council meetings, and elections, not courtrooms where judges impose their interpretations over those of local officials and voters.
The Louisiana Supreme Court should vacate the Fifth Circuit’s decision and reinstate the trial court’s ruling. Doing so would restore the proper deferential standard of review, protect local governmental discretion, and provide the regulatory certainty necessary for economic growth. Louisiana cannot afford to follow California’s path toward a litigation-heavy
environment where land use lawsuits severely delay projects and economic development.
Regulatory predictability and respect for democratic processes are the principles that should guide the Supreme Court’s decision. Louisiana’s economic future depends on it.
