NEW ORLEANS — A civil jury in Louisiana unanimously ruled on Wednesday that parish officials did not infringe upon the free speech rights of an environmental activist during a public meeting. The lawsuit was brought by Joy Banner, who sought more than $2 million in damages against St. John the Baptist Parish President Jaclyn Hotard and councilmember Michael Wright. Banner claimed they prevented her from discussing allegations of corruption regarding industrial development at the meeting. Banner’s legal team argued that the case had significant implications for safeguarding the rights of citizens who speak out against government actions, while the officials’ lawyers defended their actions as necessary to maintain order in the proceedings.
This case is part of ongoing conflicts between local grassroots organizations and authorities in Louisiana concerning industrial growth within a heavily polluted region known as the “Cancer Alley,” which stretches 85 miles between Baton Rouge and New Orleans. This area has seen mounting opposition from environmental advocates due to severe pollution levels linked to industrial activities. Banner, who co-founded The Descendants Project, an environmental and racial justice organization, is recognized for her efforts against an $800 million grain terminal that was proposed in her largely Black community in St. John the Baptist Parish. That project ultimately did not proceed.
During a parish council meeting in November 2023, Banner attempted to voice her objections regarding a proposal from Hotard that sought taxpayer money for legal counsel to defend the parish officials against ethics complaints. A state ethics board had started investigating after Banner filed a complaint highlighting a potential conflict of interest involving Hotard’s mother-in-law, who owned a marine transportation company located near the grain terminal’s proposed site.
As Banner began to speak during the public comment period about her concerns, she was interrupted by Wright, who repeatedly struck his gavel, insisting she was off-topic. He cited an outdated law suggesting anyone providing testimony to the state ethics board could face up to one year in prison, despite a federal judge previously ruling that law unconstitutional.
Banner later recounted her distress when she heard references to imprisonment, describing her feelings of terror and disbelief at the threat to her freedom and livelihood. The officials’ attorney, Ike Spears, stated they had similarly interrupted other speakers, portraying Banner as disruptive and suggesting her actions were a bid to achieve media attention through the lawsuit.
Meanwhile, Banner’s attorney, William Most, argued that her comments were crucial for raising awareness about potential ethics violations connected to Hotard’s family interests. He emphasized that Banner faced unique treatment as she was the only speaker threatened with arrest and was addressing the topic at hand. Text messages introduced as evidence showed Hotard expressing hostility towards Banner, which Most claimed revealed ulterior motives to suppress her voice at the meeting.
While the state ethics board previously cleared Hotard of wrongdoing, subsequent revelations during depositions indicated that her husband’s trust had a stake in land near the proposed railway for the grain terminal. Despite acknowledging the potential personal benefits from the terminal’s approval, Spears maintained that the parish president’s primary concern was the promise of job creation and tax revenue for the community.
In statements following the verdict, Hotard and Wright described the jury’s decision as a dismissal of what they termed a “frivolous” lawsuit and a positive indication for future business endeavors in their parish. Hotard remarked that such lawsuits often serve personal interests rather than issues of fairness or accountability.
One juror, Cam Owen, initially inclined to side with Banner, changed his opinion after reviewing the evidence, including video footage from the meeting, which he stated played a pivotal role in their deliberations. Ultimately, the jury concluded that Banner was able to convey most of her points despite interruptions.
The jury also decided that there was no violation of Louisiana’s open meetings law. Banner expressed satisfaction with the lawsuit’s results, asserting that it revealed hidden financial ties of the parish president, stating, “The purpose of this case was for transparency.”
Following the verdict, Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown encouraged both parties towards healing, emphasizing that this case was just one aspect of a larger ongoing process.
