Title: Roy v. Edwards
Citation: 294 So. 2d 507
Docket Number: N/A
State: Louisiana
Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court
Date: April 29, 1974

294 So. 2d 507 (1974) Anthony J. ROY, Jr. v. Honorable Edwin W. EDWARDS et al. W. Davis COTTON et al. v. The LOUISIANA BOARD OF REGENTS et al. Anthony J. ROY et al. v. Honorable Edwin W. EDWARDS et al. Nos. 54454, 54455 and 54453. Supreme Court of Louisiana. April 29, 1974. *508 William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., William R. Carruth, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-relator. Chris J. Roy, Alexandria, W. S. McKenzie, Taylor, Porter, Brooks &amp; Phillips, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-respondent in No. 54453. Gravel, Roy &amp; Burnes, Robert L. Royer, Chris J. Roy, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee in 54454. John V. Parker, Sanders, Miller, Downing &amp; Kean, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee in 54455. W. S. McKenzie, Taylor, Porter, Brooks &amp; Phillips, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant in 54455. MARCUS, Justice. Petitioners in these consolidated cases sought a declaratory judgment decreeing Act 712 of 1972 unconstitutional insofar as it affects the Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College and the State Board of Education; they further sought the act to be declared unconstitutional in its entirety, as well as a permanent injunction prohibiting its implementation. The district court declared Act 712 of 1972 unconstitutional in its entirely and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting implementation of said act. From this judgment, defendants moved for a suspensive appeal. Shortly thereafter, the record was lodged in this Court. Defendants then applied to this Court for writs to review their denial of a suspensive appeal by the trial judge. The writ was granted. In the meantime, the appeal was specially assigned for hearing. The primary issue presented for our resolution is whether Act 712 of 1972 is unconstitutional insofar as it conflicts with Article XII, Section 7(A) of the Louisiana Constitution. Those provisions of the Louisiana Constitution pertinent to our consideration of the constitutionality of Act 712 of 1972 are Article III, Section 32 and Article XII, Section 7. Section 32 of Article III of the Louisiana Constitution provides: Section 7 of Article XII of the Louisiana Constitution provides in pertinent part: Act 712 of 1972 (R.S. 17:3121 et seq) establishes the Louisiana Board of Regents and provides for its membership. R.S. 17:3132. It provides the basic powers and authority of the Board of Regents as follows: It purports, under authority of Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution, to abolish the L.S.U. Board and the Louisiana Coordinating Council for Higher Education effective January 1, 1974, merging and consolidating all of their powers, duties and functions into the Board of Regents. It further transfers to the Board of Regents, effective January 1, 1974, those functions of the State Board of Education relating to the government, supervision, management, administration and direction of institutions of higher education. R.S. 17:3133, subd. A. In addition, it transfers to the Board of Regents, subject to certain restrictions, all lands, records, money, funds, papers, choses in action, equipment and other property belonging to or heretofore used or possessed by the governing boards merged and consolidated into the Board of Regents. R.S. 17:3133, subd. C. Defendants contend that Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution authorized the legislature to enact Act 712 of 1972 and, therefore, the act is constitutionally sound. Petitioners contend that the act conflicts with Section 7 of Article XII of the Constitution and, for that reason, is unconstitutional. Petitioners argue, in the alternative, that Section 32 of Article III is inapplicable to the L.S.U. Board since that board is neither an "executive and administrative" office, board or commission nor are its duties or functions "of a similar nature or character" with the State Board of Education and the Coordinating Council. Recently, in the case of Student Gov. Ass'n of L.S.U., Etc. v. Board of Sup'rs., 262 La. 849, 264 So. 2d 916 (1972), we had an occasion to pass upon the authority of the legislature to pass an act which infringed upon the powers of the governing authority of the L.S.U. Board given to said board by Article XII, Section 7 of the Constitution. In holding the particular statute unconstitutional, we stated: In the instant case, as in Student Gov. Ass'n, we have an alleged conflict between a legislative act and Section 7 of the Article XII of the Constitution. However, here, the legislative act (Act 712 of 1972) was enacted under the purported authority of another constitutional provision (Section 32 of Article III). We do not find that Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution authorizes the enactment of a legislative act which attempts to consolidate and merge the direction, supervision and management of Louisiana State University by the L.S.U. Board which derives its authority from Section 7(A) of Article XII of the Constitution. Act 397 of 1940 amended Section 7 of Article XII of the Constitution. It provided in no uncertain terms that Louisiana State University "shall be under the direction, control, supervision and management" of the L.S.U. Board. The 1968 amendment to Section 7 of Article XII added at the beginning of the Section the words: "Except as otherwise provided in this Section." These words are clear and unambiguous and mean exactly what they say. The L.S.U. Board has exclusive authority over the affairs of the University except as provided in Section 7 of Article XII of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no provision in the Constitution or otherwise, except as contained in Section 7 of Article XII, authorizing the legislature to pass a statute that conflicts with the complete autonomy of the L.S.U. Board as provided in Section 7(A) of said Article. Furthermore, Section 7 of Article XII contains no provision authorizing the legislature to merge and consolidate the L.S.U. Board with any other board or commission. Hence, Act 712 of 1972 is in direct conflict with Section 7(A) of Article XII insofar as it attempts to abolish the L.S.U. Board and to transfer all direction, control, supervision and management of the University by the L.S.U. Board to a new Board of Regents. To this extent, the act is clearly unconstitutional. *511 Having concluded the aforesaid, it is unnecessary for us to consider petitioners' alternative contention that Section 32 of Article III of the Constitution does not apply to the L.S.U. Board since said board is neither an "executive and administrative" office, board or commission nor are its duties or functions "of a similar nature or character" with the State Board of Education and the Coordinating Council. Since Act 712 of 1972 contains a severability clause, we must at this point consider whether the remainder of the act can reasonably function without the offending provisions contained therein or, if not, must the entire act fall. We stated in Gaudet v. Economical Supermarket, Inc., 237 La. 1082, 112 So. 2d 720 (1959): In the present case, we need not concern ourselves with a presumption that the legislative body would not have enacted one part without the remainder because the legislature included with in Act 712 of 1972 an express statement of policy and intent in enacting same. That statement reads as follows: Thus, the express intent of the legislature in enacting Act 712 of 1972 was to create one governing board controlling all of Louisiana's institutions of higher education. Removing Louisiana State University from the ambit of control of such a single board destroys the fundamental purpose of the act. It would be impossible to have one governing board of higher education in Louisiana without the inclusion of the control and management of Louisiana State University. Thus, the unconstitutional portion of the act is so interrelated and connected with the other portions of the act that it is clear that the legislature would not have enacted one without the other. Therefore, we declare Act 712 of 1972 to be unconstitutional in its entirety. We have previously mentioned that, upon application of defendants, this Court granted writs to review defendants' denial of a suspensive appeal by the trial judge. However, having decided these consolidated cases on the appeal, the issue presented in the application for writs is now moot. For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the district court in these consolidated cases are affirmed. DIXON, J., dissents.