NOLA.com24%

Louisiana Supreme Court to settle constitutionality of cuts to New Orleans judges 10%

By Matt Bruce0%

7/17/2026, 8:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Negativity Bias, and Recency Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 25.7% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 287 faulty-reasoning hits from 269 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.1% and a BS Rank of 10% (15,350 of 17,004 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.30% of the article peer group.

The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday took over and fast-tracked a lawsuit challenging a new state law that reduced the number of judges in New Orleans courts. 
Criminal District Judge John Fuller sued Gov. 
Jeff Landry and other state officials, asking the courts to block the provision of Act 748 that eliminates three sections of criminal court by Jan. 
1. 
Landry signed the measure into law last month. 
State officials claim the measure didn’t need a supermajority for passage. 
They cite an exception for New Orleans municipal offices from the 1974 constitutional convention. 
The delegates made Crescent City courts “subject to change by law” with a simple majority, the state argues. 
Judge Tarvald Smith of the 19th Judicial District this week enjoined state officials from enacting any provision of Act 748 until after the qualifying period, which runs Aug. 
5-7. 
That left open a door for Fuller and the two others with seats marked for elimination  Judges Rhonda Goode-Douglas and Simone Levine  to run for re-election. 
Murrill vowed to appeal Smith’s injunction. 
Fuller’s attorney, Jerome Matthews, asked the state’s high court to step in. 
The Supreme Court halted proceedings at the lower courts and gave Murrill and others until next week to file any oppositions to Fuller’s claims. 
Matthews said he expects the court to rule before Aug. 5, given its expedited track. 
“Whoever lost at the (appeals court) would’ve just had to go to the Supreme Court anyway,” he said. 
“So  let’s just go straight to the Supreme Court to get a ruling.” 
Confirmation Bias
6.7%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
5.6%
Framing Effect
25.7%
Loss Aversion
10.4%
Status Quo Bias
8.9%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
2.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
10.4%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
10%
Primacy Effect
3%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
6.7%
False Dilemma
6.7%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
5.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
5.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

269 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.