On Wednesday, March 18, 2026, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a motion to recuse Chief Judge Donald Johnson from the case of Antoine Tate v. Darrel Vannoy, citing a conflict of interest due to a federal lawsuit filed by Judge Johnson against Murrill. The motion, filed in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, argues that Judge Johnson’s participation in the case would violate Louisiana law and ethical standards.
The central issue stems from a lawsuit filed on February 27, 2026, in the Middle District of Louisiana, where Chief Judge Johnson, along with Judges Ronald R. Johnson and Gail Horne Ray, sued Attorney General Murrill, Governor Jeff Landry, and Secretary of State Nancy Landry. The lawsuit, Johnson v. Landry, alleges intentional violations of constitutional rights by the defendants.
In the motion to recuse, Murrill contends that Judge Johnson’s lawsuit against her creates an adversarial relationship that prevents him from impartially presiding over the Tate v. Vannoy case, in which Murrill represents the respondent, Darrel Vannoy, Warden of Louisiana State Penitentiary. The Attorney General’s office argues that Louisiana law does not allow a judge to preside over a case when they are in a legal dispute with one of the attorneys involved.
The motion emphasizes that the federal lawsuit contains serious personal accusations against Attorney General Murrill. Chief Judge Johnson alleges that Murrill deprived him of due process and violated his rights to vote and run as a qualified Black candidate. These accusations, according to the motion, demonstrate bias and prejudice that would prevent Judge Johnson from conducting fair and impartial proceedings.
Citing Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 151(A)(4) and 151(B), as well as Code of Criminal Procedure articles 671(A)(1), 671(A)(6), and 671(B), the motion asserts that recusal is required when a judge is biased or prejudiced against the parties’ attorneys. The motion also argues that even if actual bias is not proven, the appearance of impropriety created by the federal lawsuit is sufficient grounds for recusal.
The Attorney General’s office requests that if the motion is randomly reallotted for disposition, Judges Ron Johnson and Gail Horne Ray should also be removed from the allotment due to similar motions filed in matters before them. The motion concludes by asserting that the court should grant the motion to recuse to avoid compelling Attorney General Murrill to litigate simultaneously before and against Chief Judge Johnson.
The motion states:
“Accordingly, the Attorney General moves for recusal in this case and has moved to recuse the federal plaintiffs Chief Judge Don Johnson, Judge Ron Johnson, and Judge Gail Horne Ray from all matters in which the Attorney General’s Office appears.”
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
