CAMPAIGN FOR a LIVING WAGE v. New Orleans
825 So. 2d 1098 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute prohibiting local governmental subdivisions from establishing a minimum wage for private employers is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power to ensure statewide economic stability. Any local ordinance that conflicts with such a valid state law is unconstitutional as it abridges the state's police power.
Facts:
- In 1997, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 317 (La. R.S. 23:642), which prohibited any local governmental subdivision from establishing a minimum wage that private employers would be required to pay.
- The legislature stated that this law was necessary to create a uniform environment for minimum wage rates, thereby promoting statewide economic stability and growth.
- In September 2001, the New Orleans City Council passed Ordinance No. 20376, which proposed an amendment to the city's home rule charter.
- The proposed amendment sought to establish a local minimum wage of $6.15 per hour, or $1.00 above the prevailing federal minimum wage, whichever was greater.
- The ordinance applied to most private employers within the City of New Orleans.
- On February 2, 2002, the electorate of New Orleans voted to approve the charter amendment, thereby enacting the minimum wage law.
Procedural Posture:
- New Orleans Campaign for a Living Wage sued the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana in district court (a court of first instance), seeking a declaratory judgment that the city's minimum wage ordinance was valid and the state preemption statute (La. R.S. 23:642) was unconstitutional.
- The Small Business Coalition to Save Jobs separately sued the City of New Orleans in district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance was invalid and requesting an injunction to block its enforcement.
- The two lawsuits were consolidated for trial in the district court.
- Following a trial on the merits, the district court declared the state statute unconstitutional, upheld the validity of the City's minimum wage ordinance, and denied the injunction.
- The Small Business Coalition and other opponents of the ordinance (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the state's highest court, pursuant to a constitutional provision allowing direct appeal when a law has been declared unconstitutional.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage for private employers unconstitutionally abridge the police power of the state, when the state legislature has enacted a statute prohibiting local governments from setting minimum wages?
Opinions:
Majority - Kimball, J.
Yes, the municipal ordinance establishing a minimum wage unconstitutionally abridges the state's police power. The Louisiana Constitution provides that the police power of the state shall never be abridged. The court's first inquiry is whether the state statute prohibiting local minimum wages, La. R.S. 23:642, constitutes a reasonable exercise of that police power. The legislature made a policy determination that statewide uniformity in minimum wage rates is necessary to promote the general economic welfare, stability, and growth of the state as a whole. This legislative finding, supported by expert testimony during legislative hearings, is a reasonable basis for exercising the state's police power. Courts should not substitute their own economic beliefs for the reasoned policy judgments of the legislature. Because La. R.S. 23:642 is a valid exercise of state police power, the conflicting New Orleans ordinance, which seeks to create local variation in minimum wage, directly abridges that power and is therefore unconstitutional and invalid.
Concurring - Calogero, C.J.
The New Orleans ordinance is unconstitutional, but not because it abridges the state's police power. The ordinance is invalid because it violates Article VI, § 9(A) of the Louisiana Constitution, which prohibits local governments from enacting ordinances 'governing private or civil relationships.' An employment contract is a private and civil relationship, and the ordinance directly governs this relationship by dictating the wage, which is an essential term of the contract. The majority errs by giving too much deference to the legislature's declaration of police power; the judiciary has a duty to independently scrutinize whether a state law is truly 'necessary to protect the vital interest of the state as a whole' before allowing it to preempt the authority of a pre-1974 home rule city.
Concurring - Weimer, J.
The ordinance is unconstitutional under Article VI, § 9(A) of the Louisiana Constitution, which denies local governments the power to enact legislation governing 'private or civil relationships,' except as provided by state law. The employer-employee relationship is a quintessential private and civil relationship, and the ordinance seeks to directly 'govern' it by controlling the wage. The constitution reserves the power to regulate such relationships to the state. The legislature, through La. R.S. 23:642, expressly denied local governments the authority to act in this area rather than delegating it. Therefore, the ordinance is an unconstitutional attempt to legislate in an arena reserved for the state, making it unnecessary to reach the police power analysis under § 9(B).
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
No, the municipal ordinance does not unconstitutionally abridge the state's police power. As a pre-1974 home rule charter city, New Orleans possesses a greater degree of autonomy than other local governments. A state law can only preempt its ordinances if the state demonstrates that the law is 'necessary to protect the vital interest of the state as a whole.' The state failed to meet this high burden. Proponents of the city ordinance presented compelling expert testimony that the local wage increase would have a negligible negative impact on the state's economy. The state's generalized concerns about economic stability are insufficient to override the city's legitimate exercise of its home rule authority to address local poverty and improve the standard of living for its citizens.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the balance of power between the state legislature and Louisiana's constitutionally protected home rule charter cities. It affirms the state's authority to legislate on matters of statewide economic concern and establishes that a legislative declaration of necessity for uniformity will be given great deference by the courts. The ruling strengthens the doctrine of state preemption, making it more difficult for home rule cities to enact local solutions to economic problems when a conflicting state law exists. This precedent limits the scope of local autonomy, particularly in economic regulation, and reinforces the principle that the state's police power is a fundamental constitutional limit on home rule authority.
