This story emphasizes questions from the judges that focused on the consequences of accepting the plaintiff's argument that all loans are prohibited. That interpretation, Lafayette and at least some of the judges thought, made the law absurd—it would effectively prohibit building the project at all. That's not what the law says its purpose is. (As I've mentioned before this is one of those situations in which the meaning of a law is supposed to be found in part by eliminating those interpretations which would defeat the law's clearly stated purposes.)
The brief expounds on points of law raised in questions by justices when they heard the case Nov. 28.“Due to the diverse and extensive questioning from the Court during our oral arguments, we felt it was in the best interest of Lafayette citizens that we further explain the merits of LUS’ Fiber-to-the-Home initiative,” city-parish attorney Pat Ottinger said..."
Keep those candles lit...we need the right outcome on this one.