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.
Oct. 20, 2014
By Stephen G. Collura, Jr., Senior Editor
We do almost everything on the Internet today. People use the Internet to make purchases, play games, watch movies, and even conduct research for pieces of scholarship. In fact, you are using the Internet to read this article right now. However, if you are in Louisiana, or any state besides Nevada, your other open Internet pages cannot be displaying your winning hand in an online poker game.
In reaction to the wave of Internet gambling that came about during the late 1990s, Congress and several state legislatures, including Louisiana, passed statutes criminalizing online gambling. Although other countries around the world initially took this approach, the United States remains one of the last developed countries to continue to hold steadfast against online gambling—the exceptions being Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware. Many parts of the world have proven that a system of regulation, as opposed to a complete ban, can be successful while still providing protection to participants.
by K. Connor Long
This past fall, Louisiana residents voted to amend the State’s constitutional right to bear arms. As a result of the amendment, article 1, section 11 of the Louisiana Constitution now reads: “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”1 This strict scrutiny judicial review mandate makes Louisiana’s right to bears arms the strongest in the entire country2 and is an immediate threat to any existing and future firearm legislation.3 As many legal scholars and practitioners expected, the passage of this amendment has given rise to a litany of constitutional challenges to existing Louisiana firearm regulations.4 Indeed, the Louisiana Supreme Court has already adjudicated some of these cases; however, so far the firearm regulations have stood their ground against strict scrutiny review and survived these challenges.