Federal Judge Blocks SB 256, Preserves Orleans Criminal Clerk’s Office

Ruling clears way for Clerk-elect Calvin Duncan to assume office as constitutional fight escalates

By Danielle Coston
The New Orleans Tribune

In a sharp rebuke to Louisiana lawmakers’ attempt to dismantle an elected Orleans Parish office after voters had already filled it, a federal judge has blocked enforcement of Senate Bill 256, preserving the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Clerk’s Office and clearing the way for Clerk-elect Calvin Duncan to take office.

The ruling by John W. deGravelles, a federal judge in Baton Rouge, halts the state’s effort—for now—to eliminate the criminal clerk’s office through legislation approved this year by Gov. Jeff Landry and the Republican-controlled Legislature.

At the center of the fight is Duncan, an exoneree, longtime criminal justice advocate and attorney, whose election victory last fall was widely seen as historic. Duncan won the race decisively, carrying roughly 68 percent of the vote to become the next Orleans Parish Criminal Clerk. Months later, lawmakers passed SB 256, legislation that would merge the criminal clerk’s office into another court office—effectively erasing the position Duncan had just won at the ballot box.

Duncan challenged the law in federal court, arguing the state’s action violated constitutional protections and unlawfully overturned the will of New Orleans voters. In granting relief, deGravelles blocked the law from taking effect while the broader legal challenge moves forward, preserving the office and Duncan’s ability to assume the role pending further court action.

The ruling drew swift praise from Troy A. Carter Sr., who framed the decision as a victory not simply for Duncan, but for democratic process itself.

“Justice seems to have prevailed,” Carter said in a statement released Friday. “Thank you to U.S. District Judge John deGravelles for upholding the Constitution and protecting the will of the voters. Clerk-elect Calvin Duncan can now move forward, and SB 256 has been rightly blocked. The people spoke. The law matters. Democracy must stand.”

Supporters of Duncan have long argued SB 256 was never merely about government restructuring, but about power—specifically, whether state leaders could nullify the outcome of a local election they did not like. Critics called the legislation an extraordinary act of political overreach, warning that allowing the state to abolish an office after voters selected its occupant would create a dangerous precedent for local democracy.

The state is expected to continue defending the law, setting up what could become a constitutional showdown over the limits of legislative authority, local control and the sanctity of the ballot box.