Burdens, Benefits, or Both? The Impact of Chief Justice Roberts’s June Medical Concurrence on Courts’ Analyses of Abortion Regulations

Benjamin M. Parks

I. Introduction

In 2014, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 620, or Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act.[1] The law’s basic requirement was that any physician providing abortions in the State of Louisiana had to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the location where that doctor performed abortions.[2] Act 620 defined “admitting privileges” as being a member “of the medical staff of a hospital” and having “the ability to admit a patient and to provide diagnostic and surgical services to such patient.”[3] Those who offered abortion services without admitting privileges could face up to $4,000 in fines for each violation.[4] Like most abortion regulations, the Act was not without controversy.[5] Opponents of the Act, including the Center for Reproductive Rights, characterized the law as a way for the State of Louisiana to restrict access to abortion[6] because abortion providers who could not obtain admitting privileges would be required to shutter their clinics.[7] Proponents of the Act argued that it protected women’s health and safety by ensuring that abortion-providing physicians with admitting privileges could treat their patients in hospitals should any complications arise from an abortion procedure.[8] Continue reading

Overbroad or Overboard? Reconsidering the Fifth Circuit’s Application of the Realistic Probability Test in Light of Recent Contrary Opinions

Danielle Grote

In an unusual turn of events last summer, U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James E. Graves, Jr. wrote the majority opinion in Alexis v. Barr, then separately wrote a concurrence criticizing his own opinion.[1] Writing for the majority, Judge Graves denied in part and dismissed in part petitioner Alexis’s request for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming an immigration judge’s removal order.[2] In his concurrence, Judge Graves explained that he felt bound by Fifth Circuit precedent in writing the opinion; however, he found the result to be both “illogical and unfair.”[3] At issue in the case was whether Alexis’s conviction under Texas law for possession of cocaine qualified as a controlled substance offense under federal law, making him, a noncitizen, removable from the United States.[4] To answer that question, courts apply a “categorical approach” in which they compare a state criminal law statute to the federally recognized, generic definition of the crime, to determine whether the state law is a categorical match.[5] Where a match is found, certain federal law consequences are triggered, including immigration consequences.[6] In this case, the immigration judge, the BIA, and the Fifth Circuit all agreed that the definition of cocaine is broader under Texas law than federal law.[7] In most circuits, the inquiry would have ended there: the court would declare the Texas law overbroad, and refrain from applying federal immigration consequences. Instead, Judge Graves went on to apply unique Fifth Circuit precedent which dictates that, in order to establish overbroadness, a petitioner must also show a “realistic probability” that Texas will prosecute conduct that falls outside the generic, federal definition of the crime, and ultimately found that Alexis failed to meet that test.[8]

Continue reading

Section 230: Should the Interactive Computer Service Provider Shield Be Repealed?

Katherine Fruge Corry

During a joint session of Congress convened on January 6, 2021, to count the electoral votes and confirm the electoral victory of President Joseph Biden, a radical faction of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in an unsuccessful attempt to thwart the democratic process.[1] Tragically, several lives were lost in connection with these activities.[2] Despite the attack, democracy prevailed when order was restored to the Capitol, and President Biden was formally declared victor of the 2020 Presidential election, in accordance with the will of American voters.[3] Two days later, Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram, among others, permanently or indefinitely suspended former President Donald Trump’s social media accounts.[4] In the aftermath of these suspensions, media consumers throughout the world could hear the resounding silence. To many, the silence ushered in relief, and an end to a stream of election misinformation emanating from Donald Trump’s social media accounts.[5] For others, these actions were seen as an Orwellian precedent for a broader framework towards censorship of conservatives by Big Tech companies.[6]

Continue reading

2019-20: We the Jury

Program Description

On Friday, January 31, 2020, the Louisiana Law Review and the Pugh Institute for Justice will present We The Jury: Conversations on the American Jury’s Past, Present, and Future in the McKernan Auditorium at the LSU Law Center.

The Louisiana Law Review’s 2020 Symposium explores the American jury’s history, contemporary challenges, and future role. Legal practitioners and scholars from across the country, as well as locally, will discuss and analyze a variety of issues relating to the history of the jury, jury selection and representation, the Sixth Amendment and non-unanimous juries, as well as the role of the jury as a political and cultural institution.

The Symposium features renowned scholars and academics, including Professor Shari Seidman Diamond, Professor Paul Finkelman, Professor Daniel S. Harawa, Professor Alexis Hoag, Professor Brooks Holland, Professor Mary Graw Leary, Professor Renée Lettow Lerner, Professor Nancy S. Marder, Professor Gregory Parks, Paula Hannaford-Agor, C. Renée Manes, and local judges and lawyers, including Judge Piper D. Griffin, Harry J. “Skip” Philips, Jr., J.E. Cullens, Jr., William Snowden, and Sam Crichton. LSU Law Center professors will moderate panels of scholars and practitioners in addressing these issues.

The Law Review Symposium is free and open to the public and can count for up to 7.5 hours of CLE Credit (CLE Course Title: We the Jury: Conversations on the American Jury’s Past, Present, and Future; Course #: 5170200131).

Registration Link: https://law.lsu.edu/forms/symposium/
LSU Law Symposium Website Link: https://law.lsu.edu/symposium/

Registration and Breakfast 8:00 – 8:20 A.M.
Opening Remarks – Lee Ann Wheelis Lockridge, LSU Law Interim Dean, David Weston Robinson Professor of Law, and McGlinchey Stafford Professor of Law 8:20 – 8:30 A.M.
Panel 1 – Historical Perspectives

Moderated by Professor Raymond T. Diamond, Jules F. and Frances L. Landry Distinguished Professor of Law and James Carville Alumni Professor of Law, LSU Law Center


Paul FinkelmanPresident of Gratz College

Renée Lettow Lerner, Donald Phillip Rothschild Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School

8:30 – 9:30 A.M.
Break 9:30 – 9:40 A.M.
Panel 2 – “An Impartial Jury”

Moderated by Professor Melissa T. Lonegrass, Harriet S. Daggett – Frances Leggio Landry Professor of Law, Bernard Keith Vetter Professor in Louisiana Civil Law Studies, and Wedon T. Smith Professorship in Civil Law, LSU Law Center


Alexis HoagPractitioner-in-Residence, Eric H. Holder Jr. Initiative for Civil and Political Rights, Lecturer, Columbia Law School

Gregory ParksProfessor of Law, Wake Forest University Law School

Daniel S. HarawaAssistant Professor of Practice, Director, Appellate Clinic, Washington University School of Law

Brooks HollandProfessor of Law, Donald J. and Va Lena Scarpelli Curran Faculty Chair in Legal Ethics and Professionalism, Director, Global Legal Education, Gonzaga University School of Law

Sam CrichtonAssistant District Attorney, Caddo Parish

9:40 A.M. – 12:10 P.M.
Lunch 12:10 – 12:50 P.M.
Panel 3 – The Jury as a Political and Cultural Institution

Moderated by Associate Professor of Law Raff Donelson, LSU Law Center


Shari Seidman DiamondHoward J. Trienens Professor of Law, Professor of Psychology, Director, JD/PhD program, Northwestern University, Pritzker School of Law

Nancy S. MarderProfessor of Law, Director, Justice John Paul Stevens Jury Center, Chicago-Kent College of Law

Paula Hannaford-AgorDirector, Center for Jury Studies, National Center for State Courts, Adjunct Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School

Mary Graw LearyProfessor of Law, Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law

12:50 – 2:50 P.M.
Break 2:50 – 3:00 P.M.
Panel 4 – Perspectives on Ramos v. Louisiana

Moderated by Professor Robert E. Lancaster, J. Nolan and Janice D. Singletary Professor of Professional Practice, Judge Earl E. Veron Professor of Law, and Director of Clinical Legal Education, LSU Law Center


William SnowdenDirector, Vera Institute of Justice, New Orleans Office

C. Renée ManesAssistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Oregon

3:00 – 4:00 P.M.
Panel 5 – Louisiana’s Civil Jury Threshold: A Roundtable Conversation

Moderated by Judge Guy P. Holdridge, Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal, Adjunct Professor of Law, LSU Law Center


Piper D. GriffinJudge, Civil District Court, Orleans Parish

Harry J. “Skip” Philips, Jr.Partner, Taylor, Porter, Brooks & Phillips, L.L.P., Adjunct Professor of Law, LSU Law Center

J.E. Cullens, Jr.Member, Walters, Papillion, Thomas, Cullens, LLC, Adjunct Professor of Law, LSU Law Center

4:00 – 5:00 P.M.

Volume 82 Board Announced!

The Louisiana Law Review Volume 81 Board of Editors is proud to announce the Junior Associates selected to serve on the Volume 82 Board of Editors. The Volume 81 Board received excellent candidates for the Volume 82 Board, and we thank everyone who applied. Serving on the Louisiana Law Review Board of Editors is an incredible honor, and we wish the best of luck to the Volume 82 Board!


Olivia Guidry


Managing Editor

Kennedy Beal


Articles Editors

Emma Looney

Andrew Chenevert


Production Editors

Victoria Montanio

Casey Thibodeaux


Executive Senior Editor

Sara Grasch


Senior Editors

Madeleine Breaux

Justine Ware

Christopher Vidrine

Patrick McDonald

Andrew Young


Online Editor

Gabrielle Domangue