Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to the Appointment of City Fire Chief By Louisiana Governor

A federal judge in Louisiana has dismissed a lawsuit challenging the appointment of Monroe Fire Chief Timothy Williams, ending—for now—a dispute that began when the Monroe City Council and Mayor Friday Ellis remained deadlocked for more than a year over who should lead the city’s fire department.

The case arose after the Monroe City Council refused to confirm Mayor Ellis’s nomination of Timothy Williams as fire chief. Under Monroe’s Home Rule Charter, the mayor appoints the fire chief, but the appointment requires council confirmation. Under a newly enacted Louisiana statute, Act 452, Governor Jeff Landry appointed Chief Williams to be the fire chief, angering three members of the council.

Act 452 amended Louisiana Revised Statute § 33:381 to provide that when a vacancy in the office of fire chief or police chief continues for more than twelve consecutive months in certain municipalities, the governor may appoint a chief from the certified civil service list. Because Monroe’s population falls within the statute’s narrow population range, Governor Landry exercised that authority on September 15, 2025 and appointed Chief Williams as fire chief.

Three members of the Monroe City Council—Bishop Rodney McFarland, Verbon Muhammad, and Juanita Woods—filed suit in federal court against Governor Landry, Mayor Ellis, and Chief Williams. They argued that Act 452 violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C Section 10301, by unlawfully diluting Black voting strength in Monroe because the plaintiffs (three Black council members) constituted a majority of the five-member council, and the statute reduced their ability to influence the appointment of city officials.

The plaintiffs also alleged that Mayor Ellis had bypassed the council during the impasse by working with State Senator Stewart Cathy, Jr., who sponsored the legislation. US District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty dismissed the case on March 23, 2026, not on the merits of the voting-rights claims, but for lack of standing.

The court concluded that even if Act 452 were declared unconstitutional or its enforcement enjoined, the plaintiffs’ claimed injury would remain unchanged because Monroe’s charter still requires both mayoral appointment and council confirmation. Without agreement between the mayor and council, the appointment process would remain at an impasse.

As the court explained, striking down the statute would not give the council a remedy for their alleged harm, namely the authority to select a chief on its own (citations and quotation marks removed to improve clarity):

• To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (i) that she has suffered or likely will suffer an injury in fact, (ii) that the injury likely was caused or will be caused by the defendant, and (iii) that the injury likely would be redressed by the requested judicial relief.
• These requirements are essential and unchanging.
• Relevant here is the third prong: redressability.
• Redressability requires that the court be able to afford relief through the exercise of its power, not through the persuasive or even awe-inspiring effect of the opinion explaining the exercise of its power.
• Even if the Court (1) enjoins Governor Landry from enforcing Act 452 or (2) rules that Act 452 is unlawful, Plaintiffs’ injury, appointment of a fire chief they prefer, will not be remedied.
• The Charter explicitly states that the fire chief shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council.
• In other words, even without Act 452, Plaintiffs cannot select the fire chief they prefer without Mayor Ellis signing off.
• Suppose Act 452 does not exist, and Plaintiffs and Mayor Ellis are at an impasse. Same result as now.
• Since Plaintiffs cannot show that a judgment by this Court will remedy their injury, they have not met the redressability prong for standing.
• Consequently, they have not established Article III standing.
• As such, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Governor Landry, meaning it lacks the “constitutional power to adjudicate” those claims.

The court reached the same conclusion as to Mayor Ellis and Chief Williams. In addition, with respect to Chief Williams, the court found no causal connection between his conduct and the plaintiffs’ claimed injury, noting that his only role was applying for the position and accepting appointment.

Because the court found no Article III standing, all claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Here is a copy of the decision: