Attorney General Jeff Landry had his day in court Tuesday, with a full hearing of the A.G.’s lawsuit against the Governor.

“It was a long day – a whole day of testimony and a lot of testimony -- but hopefully this gets this resolved one way or another,” Matthew Block, the governor’s executive counsel, said once the proceedings concluded, well after dark.

Block led the defense in the case centering on the governor’s executive order prohibiting discrimination. The A.G. maintains the governor exceeded his authority by issuing the order, while the Governor maintains the A.G. is exceeding his authority by refusing to approve contracts that include the anti-discrimination language.

“They want the executive order to be declared null,” Block says.

Lawyers for the A.G. argued the real problem is the inclusion of the term “gender identity”. But 15 state representatives joined the attorney general’s suit, and, as Block noted, House Appropriations chair Cameron Henry doesn’t see the problem that narrowly.

“Representative Henry testified that doesn’t matter just about ‘gender identity’. He said any language like that, ‘sexual orientation’ or otherwise in the executive order, he objected to.”

The trial also brought out another reason the A.G. is hoping for a swift resolution to this issue – money.

“The Attorney General is asking to be paid $18-million to do legal work for the Office of Risk Management, but refusing to include the language consistent with the Governor’s executive order,” Block explains. “But as we pointed out in court, the Attorney General did include language that says they’re going to promise to do what the federal executive order does, which is the same thing as what the Governor’s executive order does.”

Head of the A.G.’s Civil Division, Liz Murrill, represented Landry in the trial. Asked how she thought it went, she said, “We don’t think it’s appropriate to comment at this time, and we respect the judge’s process. He’s asked for post-trial memos and we’ll submit those by Friday. And then we’ll wait for him to rule and we’ll be happy to comment after he rules.”

A ruling is expected next week.