NEW ORLEANS — A Louisiana parish administrator who threatened to arrest and imprison an environmental activist for speaking at a public meeting did not violate her right to free speech, a unanimous civil jury concluded Wednesday.
Joy Banner had sought more than $2 million in damages from two St. John the Baptist parish officials, Parish President Jaclyn Hotard and councilmember Michael Wright, who she said prevented her from bringing corruption allegations related to industrial development at a public meeting. While Banner’s attorneys claimed the case had significant ramifications for protecting outspoken individuals from government censorship, lawyers for the parish claimed they were model authorities attempting to minimize disruption and keep the meeting on schedule.
The case is part of a larger series of legal and public hearings between grassroots community groups and Louisiana officials over industrial expansion in the 85-mile (136-kilometer) chemical corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, also known as “Cancer Alley” by environmental activists due to its high levels of pollution.
Banner, co-founder of the environmental and racial justice nonprofit The Descendants Project, rose to national prominence by opposing a $800 million grain port planned for her largely Black parish of St. John the Baptist. The project was later terminated.
Banner attempted to block an agenda item submitted by Hotard at a November 2023 parish council meeting to utilize taxpayer dollars to hire a lawyer to defend parish officials from ethical allegations. The state ethics board initiated an investigation after Banner submitted a complaint alleging that Hotard’s mother-in-law, Darla Gaudet, owned a marine transport company with land near the planned grain terminal location.
As Banner began to explain these concerns during the public comment session, councilmember Michael Wright banged his gavel many times, and both he and Hotard informed Banner that she was not speaking on topic.
Wright then mentioned an out-of-date law that said that anyone who publicly discussed testimony supplied to a state ethics board probe may face up to a year in prison. A federal judge ruled the statute illegal years ago.
“When I heard the words imprisonment and misdemeanor, I thought, ‘That’s it, I’m going to jail, I’ve messed everything up, my business will be ruined, and my name will be ruined.'” “I was terrified and shocked,” Banner subsequently stated.
Ike Spears, the parish officials’ attorney, stated that they had also interrupted and instructed other members of the public to remain on subject during the public comment session. He described Banner as a “disruptive citizen” who aspires to be a “social media influencer” and gain media attention through the litigation.
“She wants us to reward this conduct with $2 million plus,” Spears told jurors.
Banner’s attorney, William Most, responded that her planned statements at the public meeting were “vital” in notifying the parish about Hotard’s potential conflicts of interest.
“Joy Banner was treated differently than anyone else: She was the only person threatened with arrest and she was also the only one to raise the issue of Hotard’s family business interests,” Mr. Most added. “She was directly on topic.”
Hotard allegedly used derogatory language to characterize Banner, including fantasizing about strangling her, in text conversations with her mother-in-law that were presented as evidence. Most people believed the texts indicated that Hotard had a personal interest in preventing Banner from participating in a public meeting.
Last year, the state ethics board found that Hotard did not violate any state ethics regulations.
However, Hotard’s mother-in-law later revealed during a deposition for Banner’s lawsuit that Hotard’s spouse is a beneficiary of a trust that owns land that overlaps with the planned railroad line going into the proposed grain terminal.
Spears admitted that Hotard would “probably” gain from the grain terminal’s approval. However, he stated that the parish president’s primary motivations for backing the project were higher tax income and good-paying jobs.
Hotard and Wright told The Associated Press in emailed remarks that they interpreted the jury’s decision as a rejection of “frivolous” lawsuits and a favorable indicator for future corporate investment in their parish.
“These lawsuits are not about fairness or accountability,” Hotard told reporters. “They’re about leveraging the legal system for personal gain and promoting self-interest.”
Following the closing arguments, juror Cam Owen stated that he was ready to vote in Banner’s favor. He changed his mind—and burst into tears during deliberations—after carefully analyzing the facts and video evidence of the public meeting, which he termed as the “deciding factor” for the jury. Owen stated that jurors calculated Banner’s speaking time and found that she was able to communicate the majority of her perspective.
“At the end of the day, you know, they did try to stop her, but she did actually say what she had to say,” Owen told me.
The jury also determined that the parish did not violate Louisiana’s open meeting law.
Banner said she had no regrets about filing the lawsuit, which revealed the parish president’s concealed financial interests.
“The purpose of this case was for transparency,” Banner stated. “I think it’s important to hold people accountable for the things that we feel are wrong.”
“I hope you can heal,” Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown told Banner and parish officials following the ruling. “This is only one part of the process.”
Leave a Comment