A Louisiana appeals court will have to consider whether or not a librarian’s defamation lawsuit against a group advocating for government transparency has merit, the state Supreme Court decided last month.
The high court said on Dec. 27 that the lawsuit filed by Amanda Jones against Citizens for a New Louisiana and its executive director, Michael Lunsford, should be remanded to the First Circuit Court of Appeal to determine the merits of the plaintiff’s appeal. The appeals court had concluded that the appeal was not timely based on issues related to whether the trial court’s judgment was “final” during the appeal filings.
“This appeal properly placed the Oct. 11, 2022, interlocutory judgment before the court of appeal,” the Supreme Court’s split decision states. “Therefore, the court of appeal erred in failing to address the merits of plaintiff’s appeal with respect to the Oct. 11, 2022, judgment.”
Jones filed her defamation lawsuit over reactions to her advocacy to stop the Livingston Parish Library Board of Control from relocating books with “sexual health content” or reproduction themes. In a blog post, Citizens for a New Louisiana said Jones was working to keep “sexually erotic and pornographic materials” in a library’s children’s section.
“What kind of influence would she have over what your 6-year-old kindergartner sees in your local school’s library?” the group said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.
Jones argued in the subsequent litigation that statements such as these and others were defamatory, but Lunsford argues the descriptions of Jones’ position were a reasonable or accurate interpretation of her remarks, noting that a district court judge had made a similar conclusion.
He also told the Louisiana Record that the high court’s ruling was a technical one.
“Based on the district court’s ruling date on the merits, the appellate court ruled that Ms. Jones's appeal was not timely,” Lunsford said. “However, the Supreme Court disagreed. Their split decision effectively said that the district court’s ruling on the merits wasn't final because it did not include the word ‘final.’”
Citizens for a New Louisiana would have preferred that the case be over by now because it distracts from the group’s core mission, he said.
“We provide local government transparency to the public, a public service that’s become increasingly lacking since the local press mostly abandoned that role,” Lunsford said.
In her October 2022 decision, district Judge Erika Sledge concluded that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice, and Lunsford pointed out that Sledge’s view of Jones’ comments mirrored those of Citizens for a New Louisiana.
““She (Amanda Jones) clearly stated and advocated for having books with sexual and reproductive information to be kept where they were, for the benefit of the youth of our community,” Sledge said. “... If (the defendants) believed that was pornography or erotica … then it could be reasonable for them to say that she is advocating for that information to be there, to be provided to the youth and to be even advocating for the teaching.”
In a statement released after the Supreme Court ruling, Jones indicated the defendants said publicly that she promoted pornography and erotic content to children and advocated “teaching anal sex to 11-year-olds.”
“I did not do the things they have said I did,” Jones said in the statement. “Therefore, they will not be able to prove something I didn’t do. The burden is on them. I am looking forward to having the merits of my case heard in court.”
The defendants could end the litigation immediately by paying $1 and issuing an apology, she said.