by Jake Lee

Introduction
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 →

by Hailey Cummiskey

Introduction
Louisiana residents need not be tech-savvy to be familiar with LA Wallet, a fairly new application for both Apple iOS and Android that is now a lawful form of identification in the form of a digital driver’s license. The app’s origins can be traced to 2016, when Louisiana State Representative Ted James introduced House Bill 481, which the Louisiana legislature passed with Act 625, making Louisiana the first state to offer a legal, digital driver’s license.[1] Developed in 2018 primarily by the Louisiana Office of Technology Services and the Office of Motor Vehicles in partnership with Envoc, the LA Wallet app is a convenience to citizens and law enforcement alike, with over 1.4 million active users to date— nearly a quarter of Louisiana’s total population.[2] Gone are the days of not being able to walk into a bar because of the common slip up of leaving a wallet at home or losing a purse. So long as the patrons have their phone on their person, vendors can simply use LA Wallet’s “real-time age verification” instead of turning them away for forgetting to bring their license.[3] Further, the Louisiana State Police accept LA Wallet as valid proof of licensure, saving Louisiana drivers from having to scramble around their cars for an ID.[4] Recent expansions of LA Wallet’s reach, however, raise some concern about the safety of personal information contained in the app, particularly within the realm of online pornography.

Continue reading →

By Luke A. Dupré

Introduction

Louisiana’s rich colonial history has impressed its mark upon all societal institutions within the far reaches of the state’s boundary lines. From the story of the Acadian journey from Nova Scotia to the times of early French and Spanish possession, the early history of Louisiana has shaped one institution in particular—the law.[1] One of those early impressions which the state cannot seem to function without is a deference to the City of New Orleans in all aspects of law and governance.[2] The special treatment of New Orleans is a recurring theme which can be found throughout all sources of Louisiana law.[3] The most troubling form of that extraordinary treatment is the constitutional amendment—an instrument which alters the sacrosanct language of the state’s governing document.

On November 8, 2022, voters arrived at the polls to cast their ballots and were confronted with a proposed constitutional amendment which essentially would have imposed a cap on the increase of assessed value of residential property in Orleans Parish.[4] The reason for the proposal was simple: proponents believed that the assessed values in Orleans Parish were rising too fast.[5] Indeed, recent times have brought about surges in property values to many regions of the state.[6] Underlying these two simple assertions about rising property values is a simple polarity: Orleans Parish, which seeks to alter the playing field for itself, and those other sixty-three parishes which feel comfortable working under the legal construction binding upon all others within Louisiana. This Blog Post argues that the constitutional exemptions, exceptions, and privileges given to Orleans Parish should be cautioned against and perhaps cast aside at the next constitutional convention.

Continue reading →

By Jay Newman 

Introduction

The Futures Exchange (FTX), a cryptocurrency exchange platform, strutted onto the crypto scene in early 2021 and launched a large marketing campaign that featured flashy commercials and a host of celebrities.[1] In one such commercial, NFL superstar quarterback, Tom Brady, uses a flamethrower to melt a block of ice that appears to be about five feet tall, in order to obtain a similarly sized Bitcoin token.[2] While melting said ice boulder, NFL superstar quarterback, Tom Brady, informs the audience, presumably much to their relief, that they need not obtain a flamethrower to get Bitcoins. Instead, he says, it is as easy as downloading the FTX app.[3] However, and most unfortunately, there will likely not be a 2023 sequel to this commercial in which NFL superstar quarterback, Tom Brady, informs the audience that getting their money out of FTX is just as easy as putting it in. This is because a more apt celebrity for the flamethrower commercial would have been Butner Federal Correctional Complex[4] superstar financier, Bernie Madoff.[5]

Despite being run by a relatively young man who looks like he lives in his mom’s basement and sustains himself with a diet consisting of only Bagel Bites and Mountain Dew Code Red, Sam Bankman-Fried, FTX managed to garner assets and liabilities each in the range of $10–50 billion.[6] However, in early November of 2022, it was reported that Bankman-Fried’s quantitative trading fund, Alameda Research,[7] was heavily invested in the FTX native coin, the FTX Token (“FTT”).[8] This raised concerns about the solvency of both FTX and Alameda Research because FTT is not a fiat currency or cryptocurrency supported by an outside entity.[9] This means that FTT does not hold value independently of FTX, and, thus, the finances of FTX and Alameda Research were deeply intertwined, and the demise of one of the organizations would doom the other.[10] To put it simply, FTT was to Alameda Research and FTX what hydrogen was to the Hindenburg and vice versa.[11]

Continue reading →

by Tyler Frederick 

Introduction

Uberrimae fidei, the doctrine of utmost good faith, was created by English common law nearly two-and-a-half centuries ago as a “governing principle,” which was “applicable to all contracts and dealings.”[1] Essentially, uberrimae fidei holds the insured liable for every fact within his knowledge that is material to the risk.^[2] In its strictest form, uberrimae fidei renders insurance contracts void ab initio even if a misrepresentation or omission within a policy application was an accident or mistake.[3]

Soon after the doctrine’s inception, American courts adopted the uberrimae fidei doctrine.[4] Originally, uberrimae fidei was applicable to all insurance contracts.[5] Within the last century, many countries began questioning the doctrine’s draconian nature, including the United States.[6] In fact, the United States has clearly abrogated the uberrimae fidei doctrine in all non-marine insurance contexts.[7] Even Great Britain, where the doctrine originated, abolished uberrimae fidei entirely in 2015, including marine insurance.[8] Nonetheless, six United States Circuit Courts still apply this doctrine in the marine insurance context.[9]

In all other insurance contexts, no contract may be rescinded without a showing of reliance upon the misrepresentation.[10] Both the Second and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that the uberrimae fidei doctrine likewise requires proof of reliance.[11] However, in the most recent opinion on the doctrine, the First Circuit held “that the materiality of a false statement or an omission, without more, provides a sufficient ground for voiding such a policy.”[12] In other words, “materiality” merely requires proof that a misstatement could possibly influence a prudent insurer in deciding whether to take the risk.[13] Meanwhile, inducement “concerns the actual underwriter rather than the imaginary ‘reasonable’ or ‘prudent’ underwriter, and it is an inquiry into reliance and the causal connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the effecting of the insurance.”[14] This post will argue that reliance[15] is a necessary element of the uberrimae fidei doctrine.

Continue reading →