The Louisiana Supreme Court suspended Judge Royale Colbert following findings by the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana that he violated multiple canons of judicial conduct through improper ex parte communications and confrontational behavior with law enforcement.
The court's decision, issued Dec. 11, 2025, addressed two separate instances of alleged misconduct by Judge Colbert. The disciplinary action was imposed despite disagreement among justices about the appropriate length of suspension.
In the first incident, Judge Colbert became involved in a dispute between the Lafayette Police Department and The District, an event venue that was closed due to safety concerns before a planned concert. The Judiciary Commission found that Judge Colbert engaged in ex parte communications with an attorney representing The District, telling the lawyer that the timing of the closure was "BS" and that he would sign a temporary restraining order if one were filed.
The following day, a Saturday, Judge Colbert convened a meeting at the courthouse with attorneys for both The District and the City of Lafayette. During this meeting, he negotiated safety conditions for the concert and signed a temporary restraining order. The Commission determined that all of this was done without a petition being filed or the matter being assigned to Judge Colbert's division of court.
The second incident involved Judge Colbert's behavior during a traffic stop. A police officer stopped the judge for running a red light, and Judge Colbert was found to be uncooperative and verbally combative with the officer. The Commission determined that Judge Colbert made threats to damage the officer's credibility in court during the encounter.
The Louisiana Supreme Court found that Judge Colbert's conduct violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including Canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(3), 3A(4), and 3A(6). The court also found violations of Article V, Section 25(C) of the Louisiana Constitution.
Justice Crain authored the majority opinion imposing the suspension. However, the decision was not unanimous among the justices. Chief Justice Weimer concurred in the result but assigned separate reasons for the decision. Three justices dissented from the majority's imposed suspension length.
Justice Hughes dissented and would have imposed a 90-day suspension instead of the punishment chosen by the majority. Justice Griffin also dissented, indicating that no more than 90 days of suspension should be imposed. Justice Guidry dissented and assigned separate reasons for disagreeing with the majority's decision.
The case highlights the importance of judicial ethics and the standards expected of judges both in their official capacity and in their interactions with the public and law enforcement. Ex parte communications, where judges communicate with one party to a case without the other party present, are generally prohibited to ensure fairness and the appearance of impartiality in judicial proceedings.
The temporary restraining order incident raises questions about proper judicial procedure and the requirement that matters be properly filed and assigned before judges can act on them. The Commission's finding that Judge Colbert signed the TRO without a petition being filed or the matter being assigned to his division suggests a deviation from established court procedures.
The traffic stop incident demonstrates how judges' behavior outside the courtroom can also result in disciplinary action when it reflects poorly on the judiciary or involves inappropriate use of judicial position or authority.
Media coverage of the temporary restraining order incident brought additional public attention to the case, though the court's opinion notes this coverage without elaborating on its impact on the disciplinary proceedings.
This disciplinary action serves as a reminder that judicial conduct standards apply both inside and outside the courtroom, and that judges are held to high ethical standards in all their interactions. The Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, which investigated and made recommendations in this case, plays a crucial role in maintaining public confidence in the judicial system by addressing allegations of judicial misconduct.
The case also illustrates the deliberative process within the Louisiana Supreme Court, where justices can disagree on the appropriate level of discipline while still finding that misconduct occurred. The range of opinions from justices suggests that determining appropriate sanctions for judicial misconduct involves careful consideration of various factors.
Judge Colbert's suspension represents the Louisiana Supreme Court's commitment to upholding judicial ethics and maintaining public trust in the state's court system through appropriate disciplinary measures when judges fail to meet expected conduct standards.