Comment by Neely S. Griffith
When the new governor of the recently acquired Territory of Orleans vetoed the Legislative Council's efforts to retain the territory's Roman-based civil law on May 26, 1806, he could not have expected the outcry he received. After dissolving the Legislative Council in protest against the Governor's action, the indignant legislators published a Resolution affirming their commitment to the preservation of the territory's civilian heritage. A “tremendous upset” would result, they retorted, if the citizens of Louisiana were deprived of the “wisdom of the civil law” which “they [were] accustomed to from childhood.” Faced with this vehement opposition, Governor William Claiborne yielded to the legislature's demands, and the result was the creation of the first and last state in the union whose private law is regulated by a continental-style civil code.
Nearly two-hundred years after the Legislative Council's stand against the full-scale importation of the common law into Louisiana, the state, by retaining and modifying its civil code, has kept much of its civilian heritage. Although it has successfully incorporated the unavoidable influx of common law ideas into its commercial laws, Louisiana continues to adhere to civilian principles and methods in the realm of private law, particularly in the body of laws governing family relations and community property. Inevitably, those civilian ideas have collided with federal law, both statutory and constitutional, raising the question of precisely what were the laws which Congress intended to preserve to the people of Louisiana. While the present United States Supreme Court has on several occasions expressed its willingness to guard state sovereignty from congressional encroachment, especially in the area of family law, Louisiana's unique legal heritage tests the strength of the Court's commitment.
This Comment examines the interplay between federal law and Louisiana's civilian-based laws governing family relations and community property in an attempt to determine the extent to which the two regimes have been able to coexist. Part II of this Comment explores the underlying principles of Louisiana's family and community property laws. Part III reviews four major cases where Louisiana's family and community property laws have collided with federal standards and analyzes those decisions. Finally, Part IV concludes that when the conflict between Louisiana's civilian principles and the federal standard does not implicate federal equal protection rights, the prospects for accommodation between the two standards greatly increase.
About the Author
Neely S. Griffith. J.D. candidate 2002, Tulane Law School; B.A. 1999, Rhodes College.
Citation
76 Tul. L. Rev. 519 (2001)