The Louisiana Law Review held its annual Symposium on Friday, Jan. 16 at the LSU Law Center. This year’s Symposium, “The Voting Rights Act at 50: The Past, Present, and Future of the Right to Vote,” featured a keynote address by Mississippi College School of Law Dean Wendy Brown Scott and three panels of experts. Each panel focused on a different aspect of the Voting Rights Act. The first panel discussed the history of the Voting Rights Act, while the second panel debated electoral gerrymandering. The third panel looked to the future of the Voting Rights Act with an emphasis of the Shelby County decision.
The Louisiana Law Review would like to thank the more than 100 legal practitioners and students who attended the Symposium and engaged in vigorous discussions. In addition, thank you to the Law Review Coordinator Melinda Braud, Articles Editors C.J. Murray and George Holmes, and the LSU Law professors who worked tirelessly to organize the Symposium.
Volume 75, Issue 2 of the Louisiana Law Review has been uploaded to the Law Review’s Digital Commons page.
Nov. 19, 2014
By A’Dair Flynt, Senior Associate
In a letter dated July 15, 2014, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew asked Congress to pass retroactive legislation that would halt United States companies from engaging in inversion transactions. A corporate tax inversion or expatriation is a “transaction in which a U.S. based multinational restructures so that the U.S. parent is replaced by a foreign parent.” As a result, the corporation no longer has a U.S. corporate residence and can avoid the 35% U.S. corporate tax, which is currently the highest in the world. Additionally, the corporation pays no tax on its foreign source income to its new foreign country. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that over the course of 10 years, corporate inversions cost the U.S. $20 billion in lost revenue. Between 2004 and 2014, estimates indicate that over 47 U.S. companies have inverted.
Nov. 18, 2014
By Carson Haddow, Senior Associate
On December 1, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, a case that presents a hot issue in contemporary administrative law. The Court will address whether an agency must follow notice-and-comment procedure when amending interpretive rules. Its decision could bolster a significant procedural safeguard against what some have labeled agency “flip-flopping.”
Nov. 17, 2014
By Rory Green, Senior Associate
The Louisiana attorney general is vested with the power to control legal actions by, or against, the state, subject only to the obligation to uphold the laws of the state. But the extent of the attorney general’s control over state litigation is undefined. The lack of clarity in the attorney general’s authority has been the subject of repeated debate due to political controversy that is typically associated with major lawsuits by or against the state. Importantly, it is unclear whether state agencies pursuing litigation constitute the attorney general’s “clients,” with whom control of the objectives of litigation resides, or instead, whether the attorney general may dismiss suits and force settlements individually. Louisiana laws, in addition to relevant out-of-state and historical guidance, imply that it is the attorney general alone who may intervene in an independent agency’s legal actions. Nevertheless, an independent agency’s decision to pursue litigation may contradict the political standpoint of other government actors and instigate political response.