Things are getting spicy in Louisiana, where the state supreme court’s associate justices just issued an order recusing the Chief from hearing a pending matter — after he refused to step aside voluntarily.
The order comes after a motion made by attorney Scott Crichton, a former associate justice himself, citing a series of personal attacks directed toward him by Chief Justice John Weimer. The other justices finally intervened to bar Weimer from the case following “two recent
unorthodox letters penned by Chief Justice Weimer” sent to Crichton ex parte laying out a string of attacks.
Chief Justice Weimer recently escalated his personal dispute with Mr. Crichton to dizzying heights. On his own initiative, the Chief Justice transmitted a highly vitriolic, written communication, tantamount to a demand letter, to Mr. Crichton and apparently other former justices of this court, dated July 4, 2026. This letter, written on official Court letterhead and signed with the titular honorific, “Chief Justice,” repeated the Chief Justice’s disagreement with various decisions made by all of his fellow justices over the years. It conveyed Chief Justice Weimer’s view that Mr. Crichton’s actions appeared “self-serving,” “self-centered,” and “entitled.” He additionally wrote, “[Y]ou have left the reputation of the Supreme Court in shambles,” and he accused Mr. Crichton of “taking advantage of the people.” Chief Justice Weimer further wrote: “I suggest you apologize to the people of Louisiana.” He concluded with an ultra vires demand, without consulting this Court, that Mr. Crichton either reimburse certain funds identified by Chief Justice Weimer or respond within 15 days. In so doing, not only did the Chief Justice violate his own ethical obligations against ex parte communications, but “demanded” Mr. Crichton do the same.
The lawyer responded. Which prompted a second letter, calling the response “disappointing and predictable” and adding that no other judge in the state could claim the same “trifecta” of taking advantage of the public.
On Tuesday, the other six justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court removed Chief Justice John Weimer from the case by unanimous vote. Weimer had refused to recuse himself.
The seeds of this dispute were planted years ago, and the other justices lay it all out in their opinion.
In 2023, according to the opinion, the six associate justices “having lost confidence in the Chief Justice” formed an executive committee that “assumed most of the administrative responsibilities and internal governance of the Court, while the Chief Justice retained his ceremonial duties.” They made Crichton the first chairman of this committee. Since Louisiana’s chief justiceship goes to the most senior justice automatically, there is no mechanism to replace one, making this committee the only route around one.
Weimer’s hang up over reimbursing funds stems from years of charging that his colleagues improperly tapped the Judges’ Supplemental Compensation Fund to boost their own pay without first making the fund cover its expenses. Essentially, the justices voted themselves a $4,000 stipend on top of their salaries (which were also raised). The state’s Legislative Auditor has sided with Weimer. But the fund’s own board disagreed.
Meanwhile, Crichton criticized Weimer for his deciding vote in 2020 to grant Louisiana law grads a form of diploma privilege admission without sitting for the bar exam. Weimer caught heat for that vote because his daughter had graduated that year and he hadn’t recused himself from that decision — as though a sitting supreme court justice was worried about his daughter passing the bar exam instead of, you know, the deadly pandemic that was happening. The dissents to that opinion remain a testament to a particular brand of reckless partisanship, with justices opposing the measure as an “overreaction to the virus” during the same month that some Louisiana hospitals announced that they had reached ICU capacity limits and would begin refusing incoming patients.
But it’s not about who is right, it’s about avoiding the appearance of impropriety:
If Chief Justice Weimer were allowed to participate in this matter, his ultimate decision would be subject to attack by either side. Should Mr. Crichton’s client prevail, the opposing parties might take the position the Chief Justice’s decision was based on his desire to prove his impartiality. Conversely, should Mr. Crichton’s client fail to prevail, Chief Justice Weimer’s decision would be subject to attack on the basis of perceived bias.
But in case you were wondering if the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten toxic, just remember it can get so much worse.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
The post Louisiana Supreme Court Forcibly Recuses Its Own Chief Justice appeared first on Above the Law.