Announcing Volume 87 Members

Editor in Chief Andrew Kingsley

Senior Managing Editor Chris Hilton

Managing Editors Julie de Neufville Lauren Duxstad Jennifer Gisi Victoria Harrison Alex Landin Ali Lopez Kara McQueen-Borden Kate Rainey Dorian Thomas Brandt Tierney Max Weiss Erin West

Senior Notes & Comments Editor Paul Shelton Notes & Comments Editors Sami Aboulhosn Erin Bambrick Lucy Wolfe

Senior Associate Editor R. Harrison Golden

Associate Editor Paul Stevens

Symposium Editor Brian Hentosz

Online Editor Cassie Hewlings

Senior Articles Editor Lindsay Calhoun

Articles Editors Laurel Bernick Cassie Hewlings Katie McNearney Carly Miller Jason Remsen Sydney Roth Dorian Thomas Elliot Scharfenberg

Miles C. Babin Victoria Johnson Bagot Travis A. Beaton William  Bendetson Edward F. Bukaty Annalisa L. Cravens Brendan A. Curtin Lowell K. Dyer Eric M. Ferrante

Junior Members

Andrew  Gerow Evan  Gordon Liz Swingle Horn Ryan  Leske Valerie S. Lewis Liza R. Meltzer Jimmy Hix Miller Kathryn  Munson Sam E. Perrone Leslie Johns J. Ray Caitlin E. Sherrill

John Joseph Slater Colleen  Snow Emily J. Steinert Jessica M. Stricklin Anna C. Szatkowski Rebekka C. Veith Jennifer K. Watkins Molly L. Wells Rachel E. Wilson

Tulane Law Review Article Cited in Debate over Unsigned Opinions

The Tulane Law Review found itself at the forefront of a debate among legal scholars regarding the increased use of unsigned U.S. Supreme Court opinions ruling on the merits of a case, with the latest opinion reaffirming Citizens’ United v. Federal Election Commission. The New York Times penned the article in prelude as the Court mulled whether to review a case in which the Montana Supreme Court refused to follow the controversial precedent. See Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of the State of Montana, 271 P.3d 1 (Mont. 2011).

The Times cited to the Law Review's publication of Ira P. Robbins' "Hiding Behind the Cloak of Invisibility," published in Volume 86, Issue 6, expounding upon whether the Justices would employ the per curiam opinion to handle the decision.

In his article, Professor Robbins argues that the use of the per curiam, which has increased dramatically under the Roberts court, “is a misused practice that is at odds with the individualized nature of the American common law system, frustrating efforts to hold individual judges accountable and inhibiting the development of the law."

According to the Times article, Professor Robbins is not alone in sharing this sentiment.

Laura Krugman Ray, a law professor at the Widener University School of Law, believes any new challenge to Citizens United requires more than an unsigned opinion, given the far-reaching implications of the decision, according to the article.

The Supreme Court did not rise to Professor Ray’s suggestion, and shortly after the New York Times article ran, the Court issued a per curiam summarily reversing the Montana court. American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, 132 S.Ct. 2490 (2012). Justice Breyer was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.

The Tulane Law Review would like to solicit responses to this latest Supreme Court decision, both the decision itself and the use of the per curiam opinion to effectuate it, in the light of Professor Robbins’ article on the subject.

With Adar v. Smith, the Fifth Circuit Opens a Hole in the Full Faith and Credit Clause

[T]he Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held the obligation imposed on state courts under the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not give rise to a cause of action under § 1983 against nonjudicial state actors; that the Registrar's refusal to issue a birth certificate listing both Adar and Smith as parents did not deny full faith and credit to the New York adoption; and that Louisiana's adoption law restricting joint adoption to married couples was rationally related to its legitimate interest in encouraging stable familial environments for adopted children. Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146, 154, 161-62 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 400 (2011).

The Louisiana Supreme Court Affirms Health Care Providers' Freedom To Contract for Below-Schedule Reimbursement Rates in Agilus Health v. Accor Lodging North America

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that valid PPO contracts did not violate Louisiana law by authorizing reimbursement payments to providers in amounts less than those specified by the LWCA's reimbursement schedule. Agilus Health v. Accor Lodging North America, 2010-0800, pp.11-12 (La. 11/30/10); 52 So. 3d 68, 76-77.

Case Note Competition Winners Selected

Congratulations to the five members whose case notes were selected for publication in Volume 86.

• Erin Bambrick, In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation:  Upholding Freedom of Contract.
• Cassie Hewlings, With Adar v. Smith, the Fifth Circuit Opens a Hole in the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
• Katie McNearney, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin:  The Fifth Circuit Questions Judicial Deference to Race-Conscious Admissions Policies in Higher Education.
• Kara McQueen-Borden, The Louisiana Supreme Court Affirms Health Care Providers' Freedom To Contract for Below-Schedule Reimbursement Rates in Agilus Health v. Accor Lodging North America.
• Sydney Roth, Gulf Coast v. Newlin:  Reaffirming the Fundamental Notions of Admiralty Jurisdiction.