A Louisiana justice of the peace received $402,529 in 2025 as his Jefferson Parish court issued 3,276 eviction orders over a separate 12-month period, prompting renewed questions about how the state’s lower courts are funded.
Charles V. ‘Chuck’ Cusimano II, the elected justice for Jefferson Parish’s Fifth Justice Court near New Orleans, received $380,929 in court fees and a further $21,600 parish salary during 2025. Those figures appear in the court’s official financial statements, which have been independently checked by Fish 4 News. The document is an accountant’s compilation, not an independently audited set of accounts.
An extensive investigation by The Guardian, published on 20 October, found that Cusimano’s court handled more than 5,500 eviction filings between June 2025 and May 2026, resulting in 3,276 eviction judgments. On 30 October, lawmakers from both main US political parties called for reform of the fee-based system. Cusimano disputes that its funding model creates a conflict of interest.
What the records show
- $402,529: total compensation recorded for Cusimano in calendar year 2025, made up of $380,929 in fees and a $21,600 parish salary.
- $956,890: fees, fines and charges collected by his court in 2025. That is court revenue, not the judge’s personal income.
- 3,276: eviction judgments identified by The Guardian from June 2025 to May 2026. A judgment does not necessarily mean a tenant was physically removed.
- More than 5,500: eviction claims filed in that 12-month period, including cases later cancelled or settled.
- 86 in 36 minutes: cases heard during one sitting on 18 June, of which 85 ended in eviction judgments, according to reporters who observed the court.
The income figures and eviction counts cover different time periods. Neither the $402,529 total nor the court’s entire fee revenue can accurately be described as money earned from those 3,276 eviction orders alone. The court also handles other civil matters.
How can eviction cases generate a judge’s income?
Louisiana’s justices of the peace are locally elected officials who deal with small claims and other matters, including evictions. Unlike judges in ordinary district courts, they do not have to be qualified lawyers. Their courts receive filing fees, which fund court operations, constables and staff; after those costs, an amount may be retained by the justice as personal compensation.
Cusimano’s Fifth Justice Court charges at least $150 to file an eviction, according to the published court fee information cited in The Guardian’s investigation. Landlords normally pay when they file, although court charges can subsequently be passed to tenants. Critics argue that tying a judge’s remuneration to the number of cases brought into court creates a risk to perceived impartiality, particularly when the same landlords file repeatedly.
The Guardian’s analysis found that one company, 1st Lake Properties, accounted for more than 60% of eviction cases in Cusimano’s court during the year studied. The company did not respond to the newspaper’s repeated requests for comment. High filing volumes do not, on their own, establish that decisions were improper.
86 cases in 36 minutes
Journalists observing hearings recorded a sitting on 18 June in which Cusimano dealt with 86 cases in 36 minutes. Almost all resulted in eviction judgments. The investigation described many cases being decided when tenants did not appear and reported concerns from renters about the opportunity to explain their circumstances.
Cusimano acknowledged that hearings were fast but told The Guardian he allowed tenants to present relevant defences. He said his unusually large caseload reflected the concentration of rental apartments in his district and rejected the suggestion that the way fees are collected compromised his decisions.
Does this amount to corruption?
No criminal finding of corruption against Cusimano is established by these reports. The documented concern is a potential structural conflict of interest: a judge’s personal earnings can rise with the volume of court filings. That is different from proof that a particular judgment was bought, that money was illegally taken, or that Cusimano accepted a bribe.
Cusimano has argued that landlords pay filing fees irrespective of whether they win or lose a case. Critics respond that landlords can decide where to file claims and that their repeated use of a court may still create an incentive to keep proceedings attractive to them.
Separately, a federal class-action challenge argues that Louisiana’s wider fee-funded justice court system violates constitutional safeguards. The case discussed by The Guardian names another justice, Steven Sanders, not Cusimano. Its allegations must not be confused with a court ruling that Cusimano acted unlawfully.
What politicians are proposing
In a 30 October follow-up report, The Guardian said Republican state representative Jerome Zeringue was considering legislation ahead of the April 2027 legislative session, including possible changes to judicial compensation and qualifications. Democratic representatives Kyle Green and Edmond Jordan, and state senator Royce Duplessis, were among those questioning the current arrangement.
Those are calls for action, not changes already enacted. Any reform would have to address how smaller courts are financed without making judicial pay dependent on the volume of cases brought by particular parties.
What happens to Cusimano’s court?
Cusimano announced in August that he intended to retire at the end of 2026. According to The Guardian, his son, Chuck Cusimano III, was the only candidate standing to succeed him. That succession is a separate issue from whether the current fee structure is lawful or fair.
What we know and what remains unanswered
The judge’s reported compensation is backed by the published 2025 financial compilation, and the eviction figures come from The Guardian’s examination of the court’s underlying records. What remains unresolved is whether Louisiana lawmakers will introduce and pass reforms, what safeguards any legislation would contain and how the ongoing constitutional litigation will conclude.
The core public-interest issue is broader than one judge’s earnings: whether people facing the loss of their homes can be confident they are being heard by an independent court with no financial interest in attracting more cases.
Watch: WWLTV’s report
New Orleans broadcaster WWLTV reported the findings and the bipartisan calls for reform. If the player does not load, watch the report directly on YouTube.
Sources
- Louisiana Legislative Auditor: Fifth Justice Court 2025 financial statements (accountant’s compilation; not an audit)
- The Guardian: original nine-month eviction court investigation, 20 October 2026
- The Guardian: bipartisan calls for reform, 30 October 2026
- Jefferson Parish Clerk of Court: justice of the peace district list
- WWLTV: video report, 30 October 2026
