It’s fairly common for coworkers to get together for events like a barbecue during the summer months. If the justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court (SCoL) have a seafood boil on the agenda, there’s a good chance the crawfish won’t be the only things with an angry red color.
On July 28, 2026, the court’s six associate justices issued an order recusing Chief Justice John L. Weimer from a case that includes one of their former benchmates as lead counsel after he refused to do so voluntarily. The ruling highlights the bitter internecine feud at the Supreme Court of Louisiana that’s existed for years, which includes the associate justices wresting away the Chief Justice’s administrative responsibilities a few years ago.
The order ruled that Judge Weimer may carry a perceived bias and the appearance of impropriety in a case involving former Louisiana Supreme Court associate justice Scott J. Crichton, a finding supported by a pair of unorthodox letters sent ex parte to Crichton by the Chief Justice. The two have a history of conflict that stems from Judge Weimer’s accusations that the associate justices were abusing the judges’ supplemental compensation fund while Scott Crichton was a member of SCoL.
It takes a lot to upstage a case involving a $421 million jury verdict. However, the SCoL Justices seem more than up to the challenge.
Might Need To Reconsider the State’s Motto of “Union, Justice, Confidence”
The case before the Court is St. Charles Surgical Hospital v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity (Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana). It involves a breast cancer center’s pursuit of fees for over 7,800 procedures that were denied by the insurance company. While the 2024 jury’s award of $421 million was upheld by the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2026 and is a story in and of itself, it’s the infighting, personal attacks, and imposed recusal that may attract more attention.
If the accusations levied by both sides are true, nobody is getting through this without dirty robes. The Chief Justice has long quibbled with the associate justices over the judicial compensation fund. Since 1988, it has provided them with a $1,500 monthly stipend for expenses related to their presence in New Orleans for court proceedings, in addition to their six-digit annual salaries and meal per diem. The justices are not required to provide an itemized account of how the stipend funds are spent, leading Chief Justice Weimer to suggest that some of his benchmates were taking advantage of the system.
His outrage grew last year when a bill was passed that would increase the monthly stipend to $4,000 as an inflation adjustment. Citing agreement by the state’s legislative auditor, Chief Justice Weimer accused the other justices of enriching themselves at the expense of Louisiana’s taxpayers and refused to take the raise for himself.
This added another ember to the conflagration of disagreements and outright hatred that appears to have been part of the SCoL for quite some time. Perhaps in response to his questioning of their monthly stipends, the six associate justices (which included then-Judge Crichton, who would soon retire due to hitting the age limit) claimed a “lack of confidence” in the Chief Justice. This led them to form an executive committee and take over Chief Judge Weimer’s administrative powers, essentially reducing him to a figurehead.
There was also finger-pointing over Chief Judge Weimer’s decisive vote in approving a 2020 4-3 ruling that allowed that year’s crop of Louisiana law school graduates to practice law without passing the bar exam, due to the pandemic. Why was that an issue? Chief Justice Weimer refused to recuse himself despite his daughter being one of the graduates who benefited from his tie-breaking vote.
Letters, Oh We Get Letters, We Get Your Letters Every Day
According to the recusal order, Chief Justice Weimer sent two personal letters ex parte to Crichton on the official Court letterhead. In addition to criticizing Crichton and his former colleagues for many of their rulings and stating that Crichton had “left the reputation of the Supreme Court in shambles,” he included an ultra vires demand that the now-attorney repay the “unjust enrichment” he enjoyed during his tenure on the SCoL bench.
The unanimous decision to recuse the Chief Justice from presiding over the case in which Crichton is serving as lead counsel cites Article 157 and Article 151 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure as justification. Concerned that Chief Justice Weimer would be “biased or prejudiced toward or against the parties or the parties' attorneys,” it argued that the Code of Judicial Conduct would be questioned if he oversaw the proceedings.
Depending on which side you’re on, the recusal is either the correct thing to do by concerned associate justices, or an act of vengeance by a group of usurpers who already had a bone to pick. Unless Chief Justice Weimer opts to make a legal challenge opposing the order, lead counsel Crichton will have one less thing to worry about as he returns to the SCoL on the opposite side of the attorney’s table.
