Volume 84, Issue 1


Arseny Shevelev and Georgy Shevelev

Henry H. Perritt Jr.

Carte Blanche: SCOTUS Issues a Puzzling Decision on Texas and Louisiana’s Challenge to the Biden Administration’s Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1226 and § 1231

by James M. Truett


I received a letter just before I left office from a man. I don’t know why he chose to write it, but I’m glad he did. He wrote that you can go to live in France, but you can’t become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Italy, but you can’t become a German, an Italian. He went through Turkey, Greece, Japan and other countries. But he said anyone, from any corner of the world, can come to live in the United States and become an American.[1] Continue reading

Spilling the Deceitful Tea: Navigating the Flavor Versus Ingredient Debate Amidst Kominis v. Starbucks Corporation


by Madeline A. Earles

Louisiana’s incredibly rich and diverse culture is often reflected through the unique cuisine throughout the state. Of Louisiana’s varying customs and traditions, a world-renowned gift remains at the heart of Louisiana cooking—Cajun cuisine. The ever-growing popularity of Cajun cuisine coupled with modern advancements in the culinary sphere has led to the use of Cajun seasoning without making a trip down the bayou to Cajun country. A multitude of brands sell the ill-defined, premade Cajun seasoning in a jar, each adding its own unique spin on the ingredients.[1] With each brand providing its own spin on the seasoning, one cannot truly define what Cajun seasoning is or distinctively list a specific ingredient flavor present in the product. The differing ingredients of these brands along with a lack of consensus on flavor allow Cajun seasoning brands—who are responsible for the formulation, manufacturing, marketing, naming, advertising, and sale of its products—great freedom in the distribution of such products. However, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s rejection to dismiss reasonable consumer claims potentially affects this freedom where the flavor versus ingredient debate is set to continue.[2] Continue reading

An Unconventional Obligation: The Marriage Contract in Louisiana After Wederstrandt v. Kol

by Elise I. Diebold

Just two weeks after a car accident claimed the life of their daughter, Ivie Efferson’s parents filed a petition to annul their deceased daughter’s marriage under Louisiana Civil Code article 2030.[1] Article 2030 provides a general rule of conventional obligations which states that “[a] contract is absolutely null when it violates a rule of public order, as when the object of a contract is illicit or immoral.”[2] However, in Wederstrandt v. Kol, the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that article 2030 does not apply to the contract of marriage.[3] Instead, marriage contracts are classified as absolute nullities only under the exclusive grounds enumerated in Louisiana Civil Code article 94.[4] Thus, article 2030 may not be used as a basis for annulling marriages.[5] However, this decision raises the implication that marriages may in fact be entered into for the purpose of violating a rule of public order, provided that all other requirements to perfect a valid marriage contract are met.[6] Continue reading

Gauthreaux v. City of Gretna: Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Finding No Protection Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Employment

by Jake Lee

Louisiana’s state law protections against discrimination in employment have recently expanded but are still not fully protective. In 2022, Louisiana became the 18th state to implement the CROWN Act—legislation prohibiting employers from discriminating against an employee based on his or her natural hairstyle.[1] After the implementation of the CROWN Act, the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law (the LEDL) now prohibits discrimination based on an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or natural, protective, or cultural hairstyle.”[2] However, despite these expanded protections, the LEDL does not protect against employment discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation.[3]

Continue reading