Case: Meade v. Bonin

This is a case about due process violation under the 14th amendment based on a judge potentially steering defendants towards using ankle monitors by a company he has financial and political ties to. On May 14, 2020, two criminal defendants who were ordered to wear ankle monitors in Judge Paul A. Bonin’s court, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs, represented by Institute for Justice, sued Judge Bonin and the ankle monitoring company, ETOH Monitoring, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by not disclosing his financial and political ties to the ankle monitoring company. The plaintiffs sought class-action certification, attorney fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief that would make Judge Bonin disclose his relationship with ETOH monitoring to defendants when ordering their use, stop ETOH Monitoring from providing services to Judge Bonin without their relationship being disclosed, and to have ETOH disgorge and return or cancel fees collected. The case was assigned to Judge Carl J. Barbier.

The plaintiffs claimed that Judge Bonin unconstitutionally required or steered defendants in his court house into ankle monitoring service agreements and their significant fees with ETOH monitoring service. They claimed that Judge Bonin maintained a private and professional relationship with the two owners of ETOH monitoring. The plaintiffs claimed that the owners of ETOH monitoring donated or loaned $10,000 to Judge Bonin’s various judicial electoral campaigns. According to the plaintiffs, since 2017, Judge Bonin required the use of ETOH monitoring for those ordered to have an ankle monitor, and required fees paid before release from probation or as precondition to not being jailed. They further contend that ETOH regularly sent Judge Bonin a status report highlighting individuals to check in on, not because they violated their probation, but because they were behind on payments.

A 2018 report from Court Watch NOLA found that Judge Bonin, out of the five New Orleans Judges who received a financial campaign contribution from an ankle monitoring company, was the only one who required a defendant to wear an ankle monitor.

On July 14, 2020, both Judge Bonin and defendant ETOH filed a motion to dismiss the case against them for failure to state a claim that could be remedied as they are not a state actor. On August 23, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims against Judge Bonin. 

On September 4, 2020, Presiding Judge Barbier denied the ETOH's remaining motion to dismiss on the basis that ETOH Monitoring is a state actor under the “public function” test which makes their action remediable. 2020 WL 5311351.

On Jun 30, 2021, ETOH filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On September 10, the court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove a sufficient institutional incentive or individual bias through their pleadings, which is required under a Due Process challenge. 

On October 4, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. The appellants argued that the district court erroneously dismissed their due process claim. They claim the district court’s dismissal was erroneous because the plaintiffs had adequately alleged the appearance and reality of interested-decision making, and that they had adequately pleaded an institutional due process claim, given that ETOH could benefit from each of Judge Bonin’s decisions. Multiple organizations, including the Cato Institute and MacArthuer Justice Center, submitted amicus curiae briefs. 

On February 10, 2022, appelle Judge Bonin filed a partial dismissal of the appeal, asking the court to dismiss him from the appeal. On February 15, 2022, the Fifth Circuit granted Judge Bonin’s partial dismissal of appeal, and the appeal remained pending as to all other parties. 

On August 2, 2022, Fifth Circuit Judges Richman, Wiener, and Willett heard oral arguments in this case. According to the docket, it appears that between August 2022 and August 2024, there were no updates in the appeal. In August and September 2024, the appellants filed supplemental authorities to which the appellee filed its response in October 2024.

As of November 24, 2024, the appeal is ongoing.