Lawsuit could deal major blow to Landry’s tax reforms
By Nolan McKendry | The Center Square
A legal challenge to a sweeping constitutional amendment backed by Gov. Jeff Landry could derail his broader tax reform agenda, raising questions about the future of his signature fiscal policies.
The lawsuit, filed by two teachers and a pastor, challenges the legality of HB 7— now known as Amendment 2 — a measure that would dramatically rewrite Louisiana’s tax and budgetary policies.
The plaintiffs argue the amendment violates state law by misleading voters and bundling a disparate set of policy changes into a single ballot measure.
The outcome of this case could determine whether Landry’s tax reforms —crafted in response to longstanding GOP complaints about Louisiana’s tax structure — move forward or are sent back to the drawing board. Landry has promoted the amendment as a necessary step toward economic growth and stability, framing it as a tax cut that will make Louisiana more competitive.
If the court rules against the governor, it would be a significant setback, forcing lawmakers to revisit the issue and possibly delaying some of the tax overhaul’s proposed by Landry, including doubling the standard deduction for seniors.
Teachers would also lose the $2,000 stipend they’ve been receiving for the past two years, with nothing budgeted to replace it, and individuals would lose the chance for their income tax to be permanently capped.
The lawsuit, filed in the 19th Judicial District Court, contends that the amendment’s ballot language is “biased and misleading” because it obscures the true impact of the proposed changes.
The amendment is also being challenged by religious leaders across the state over the removal of constitutional protections for religious nonprofits.
The proposed amendment would allow the legislature to more easily remove tax exemptions for “[p]roperty owned by a nonprofit corporation or association organized and operated exclusively for religious…purposes.”
The exemptions would not be done away with immediately, but they would lose their constitutional protections, leaving them vulnerable to the whims of the Legislature.
The measure, set to appear on the March 29 ballot, condenses over 100 pages of constitutional revisions into a single sentence, which plaintiffs say highlights only the most appealing aspects while omitting significant consequences.
The plaintiffs, represented by Most & Associates, argue that state law requires ballot language to be “simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood.”
They claim the wording of Amendment 2 fails this test.
“The core arguments for why this is illegal are that it violates certain basic guardrails that serve to protect transparency and honesty,” William Most said in an interview.
“The ballot language fails to communicate the range of constitutional changes voters may find unappealing, including the elimination of constitutional protection for early childcare, STEM initiatives, and dyslexia training – programs that will impact more than 26,000 students across the state if the amendment is passed,” Most & Associates wrote in a press release.
Most is also arguing that the Amendment includes too many reforms for one piece of legislation.
“Voters are supposed to be presented with one object, one change to the Constitution at a time that they can vote up or down,” Most told The Center Square. “But this amendment packs 40 or 50 things in that are completely unrelated.”
Even if the measure survives the legal challenge, the case will continue, Most said.
“The question of a preliminary injunction isn’t about whether one side wins or loses the case,” Most said. “It is about whether to maintain the status quo while the case proceeds. So the case will proceed regardless of the decision on the preliminary injunction request.”
In other words, a preliminary injunction only decides whether to maintain the status quo while litigation proceeds. Even if the injunction is denied, the case will move forward, and Amendment 2 could still be retroactively invalidated depending on the final ruling, meaning the preliminary injunction will not be the end of the challenges to the amendment, and the fate of Landry’s tax reforms will still be uncertain.
A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Wednesday before Judge Louise Haring. If the plaintiffs succeed, the state could appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and eventually the Louisiana Supreme Court.
With early voting set to begin on March 15, the legal battle is unfolding on a tight timeline. A ruling against the amendment could leave lawmakers scrambling to salvage key elements of Landry’s tax reforms through separate legislation.
If Amendment 2 is struck down, Landry may have to return to the Legislature with a piecemeal approach, potentially making it harder to achieve the sweeping tax changes his administration envisions.