A state judge has dismissed a lawsuit that challenged Gov. John Bel Edwards’ decision last year to pull out of a federal program to provide Louisiana residents with supplemental unemployment benefits during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
Judge Timothy Kelley of the 19th Judicial Circuit in Baton Rouge dismissed the case brought by several unemployed residents after concluding there was no legal mandate that the state take part in the federal program, which would have provided $300 per week to those who qualified through early September 2021.
Edwards signed legislation in June that pulled Louisiana out of the jobless benefits program by July 31. The bill, HB 183, also increased future state unemployment benefits by $28 per week. The reasoning behind the cutoff in federal benefits was that it would encourage unemployed Louisianans to re-enter the job market at a time when many jobs were going unfilled, according to those familiar with the legislation.
But David Macpherson, a Texas-based forensics economist who analyzed U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data and other evidence for the plaintiffs, found that only 2% of the Louisianans collecting the federal benefits in July were able to get jobs by August. This suggests that many of the estimated 189,000 residents in the state receiving the benefits were unemployed by choice, Macpherson told the Louisiana Record.
“It’s hard to argue with free money,” he said. “It’s hard to see how that somehow hurts the state since few people ended up getting jobs.”
During the time period when the plaintiffs lost their federal benefits, the state was facing the COVID-19 Delta, and Louisiana was confronting the effects of Hurricane Ida by the end of August.
“That would suggest that those people for no fault of their own could benefit from unemployment benefits,” Macpherson said, noting that many businesses were having difficulties staying open due to the pandemic and storm-related damage.
Ultimately, the state walked away from $330 million in federal dollars in making its decision.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are now considering whether to file an appeal.
“If we had been able to present evidence at trial, it would have certainly raised awareness about the fact that people were legitimately relying on these benefits,” Macpherson said.