Place Your Bets: A New Means of Economic Activity in Louisiana through Sports Gambling

John Frey


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

Qualified Immunity through the Lens of Spears v. Gautreaux

Ani Boudreaux


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

The Split Continues: An Update on the Never-Ending Ambiguity Surrounding the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act

Emiley E. Dillon


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

Homes Compose the Community: Extend the Community Caretaking Exception to Homes

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

Junior Associates Selected for Publication in Volume 82 Announced!

The Louisiana Law Review Volume 81 Board of Editors is proud to announce the Junior Associates selected for publication in Volume 82. The decision process was extremely difficult this year because of the number of well-written student pieces.

Since 1938, the Louisiana Law Review has served as Louisiana’s flagship legal journal and has become a vibrant forum for scholarship in comparative and civil law topics. The Law Review currently ranks in the top 200 student-edited journals, and among the top 50 journals for the highest number of cases citing to a law review. Louisiana Law Review scholars have been recognized around the world for their contributions to both common and civil law doctrine. Publication with the Louisiana Law Review is an incredible honor, and we congratulate those selected for publication. 

Heidi Bieber – Leaving it up to Chance: Problems with the H-2B Statutory Cap on Visas

Madeleine Breaux – Omnipotent Doctrine of Law: The Ministerial Exception after Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

Andrew Chenevert – Tipping the Cap to Practical and Equitable Considerations: Should the Fifth Circuit Apply 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6)’s Cap to Non-rent Damages?

Gabrielle Domangue – Permitting Gross Ups for Title VII Back Pay Awards: A Gross Tax Issue

Natalie Earles – The Great Escape: Exploring Chapter 11’s Allure to Mass Tort Defendants

Sara Grasch – Resolving Louisiana’s Precarious Position on the Sale of Movable Things by Precarious Possessors

Olivia Guidry ­– Res Judica-duh! The Preclusion Revolution: Does Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 425 Operate as a Claim Preclusion Device that Allows Defendants to Avail Themselves of Judgments to Which They Were Not a Party?

Emma Looney – You Can Go Your Own Way: The Failings of Teague v. Lane and Why Louisiana Should Create Its Own Retroactivity Standard

Cullen McDonald ­– The Qui Tam Question: Proper Pleading Requirements for Relators Under the FCA

Victoria Montanio ­– Finally, Some Clarity: Why Statutory Withholding Orders are not Final Orders of Removal Under the Nasrallah v. Barr Analysis

Chaz Morgan – TOPSy-Turvy: The Taylor Opportunity Program for Students Homeschool Discrimination Contradiction

Brad Oster – Reigning In Regulatory Overreach: FERC’s Role In Bankruptcy

Harper Street – Breaking the Chains of a Habitually Draconian Penal System: An Examination of Louisiana’s Habitual Offender Statute with Recommendations for Continued Reform

Casey Thibodeaux – It’s What You Said and How You Said It: The NLRB’s Attempt to Separate Employee Misconduct from Protected Activity in General Motors LLC

Christopher Vidrine – The Zoom Paradox: Schrodinger’s Witness

Andrew Young – Enough with this B-S Standard: Resolving Louisiana Courts’ Problematic Application of a Burden-Shifting Standard in Slip-and-Fall Cases Against Medical Institutions