John Frey

Introduction

Louisiana is consistently one of the poorest states in America. There are different metrics for what makes a state “poor”; however, Louisiana earns the label regardless of how it is defined. For example, when using the percentage of the population living at or under the poverty line as the standard for whether a state is poor, Louisiana ranks second to last.[1] When ranking states based on a combination of variables, including state finances, state economies, and state job markets, Louisiana ranks, once again, second to last.[2]

Logically, a state struggling financially might want to embrace a new stream of income. For Louisiana, sports gambling provides just that.[3] In November of 2020, Louisiana voters in 55 out of 64 parishes voted to make sports betting legal within their parish, which will lead to the legalization of sports betting in a majority of the state.[4] This result was not a surprise, as Louisiana is no stranger to gambling.[5] In 2020, Louisiana’s gambling offerings, such as casinos, video poker machines, and racetracks, generated $609 million in state taxes, which accounted for roughly 5% of Louisiana’s overall revenue.[6] For comparison, Louisiana is also a prominent oil and gas producer, and oil and gas production only accounted for $550 million in state taxes, which was 4.5% of the state’s revenue.[7] While Louisiana voters may not consider potential tax revenue as the driving force behind their voting decisions, the legalization of sports gambling provides Louisiana with both a new stimulus to its struggling economy and a new pool for state taxes.[8] Continue reading →

Ani Boudreaux

Introduction

On February 23, 2016, Baton Rouge police officers fired 21 times at Travis Stevenson while he was having a mental health crisis.[1] Travis did not survive this encounter with police, and his death has become one part of a larger story. The deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and many others have revived a national debate about the need for reform of qualified immunity, which provides an affirmative defense for law enforcement officers in certain situations.[2] On June 17, 2020, the Middle District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of the police officers involved in Stevenson’s killing, holding that they were protected from liability under qualified immunity.[3] There is not a single overwhelming theory of change that would solve all problems with the doctrine in one fell swoop. This post aims to present both federal and state proposals, thus allowing the reader to better understand the history of qualified immunity and the types of issues facing the 5th Circuit on appeal in the case Stevenson’s successors filed, Spears v. Gautreaux.[4]

Continue reading →

Emiley E. Dillon

Introduction

Securities litigation and enforcement often increase in times of financial hardship and crisis, and experts believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will be another example of this reality.[1] One critical choice any plaintiff’s attorney in a securities-related class action must make is whether to bring a claim under federal or state law. As securities litigation increases in response to COVID-19, this jurisdictional decision will likely become more relevant.[2] Even before COVID-19, however, this choice has taunted securities lawyers. Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) to give effect to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) by preventing claimants from bringing security fraud claims in state court as a method of avoiding the PSLRA’s more stringent federal pleading standards.[3] The SLUSA provides that a claimant may not bring a class action involving more than 50 members in any state court based on state law if the claim involves a nationally listed security and alleges “an untrue statement or omission of a material fact . . . [or] manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance” in connection with buying or selling a covered security.[4]

Federal circuit courts have taken varying approaches to the single question of when a complaint alleges a misstatement or omission sufficient to warrant SLUSA preemption.[5] The question of preemption becomes more difficult to answer when the complaint alleges traditional state-law claims of breach of fiduciary duty or breach of contract with incidental aspects of security fraud.[6] With the increasing willingness of the circuits to interpret the SLUSA broadly and the growing amount of pandemic-related securities litigation, there may be more opportunities for the Supreme Court to finally provide clarity on this issue. Continue reading →

Kristyn Couvillion

I. Background

A fundamental right secured by the Bill of Rights is the right of individuals to be free of unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

Throughout Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a reasonableness standard. Courts apply a reasonableness standard when limiting the Fourth Amendment. When an exception to the Fourth Amendment is properly met, law enforcement can conduct a warrantless search or seizure. Some notable exceptions justifying warrantless searches and seizures are exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest, plain view, and consent.[2] Continue reading →