I’m not sure if it plays in this but, not known to many, Louisiana uses a Napoleonic code as a basis for their civil laws. (Which is why, when one graduates from law school you’re told that you can practice law in all 50 States except Louisiana.)
So, the Federal Judge might be upholding the State’s intent. Doubtful, but possible.
From Wiki:
Civil law
The Louisiana political and legal structure has maintained several elements from the time of French governance. One is the use of the term “parish” (from the French: paroisse) in place of “county” for administrative subdivision. Another is the legal system of civil law based on French, German and Spanish legal codes and ultimately Roman law—as opposed to English common law. Common law is “judge-made” law based on precedent, and is the basis of statutes in all other U.S. states. Louisiana’s type of civil law system is what the majority of nations in the world use, especially in Europe and its former colonies, excluding those that derive from the British Empire. However, it is incorrect to equate the Louisiana Civil Code with the Napoleonic Code. Although the Napoleonic Code strongly influenced Louisiana law, it was never in force in Louisiana, as it was enacted in 1804, after the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. While the Louisiana Civil Code of 1808 has been continuously revised and updated since its enactment, it is still considered the controlling authority in the state. Differences still exist between Louisianan civil law and the common law found in the other U.S. states. While some of these differences have been bridged due to the strong influence of common law tradition, [9] it is important to note that the “civilian” tradition is still deeply rooted in most aspects of Louisiana private law. Thus property, contractual, business entities structure, much of civil procedure, and family law, as well as some aspects of criminal law, are still mostly based on traditional Roman legal thinking. Model Codes, such as the Uniform Commercial Code, which are adopted by most states within the union including Louisiana, are based on civilian thought, the essence being that it is deductive, as opposed to the common law which is inductive. In the civilian tradition the legislative body agrees a priori on the general principles to be followed. When a set of facts are brought before a judge, he deduces the court’s ruling by comparing the facts of the individual case to the law. In contrast, common law, which really does not exist in its pure historical form due to the advent of statutory law, was created by a judge applying other judges’ decisions to a new fact pattern brought before him in a case. The result is that historically English judges were not constrained by legislative authority.
If Americans really understood what is being hidden in plain sight here, there'd be a revolution tommorrow. As well, referring to Roman law as "civilian law" and then contrasting it with common law on the grounds of lack of judicial restraint by the legislature takes my breath away. I've never read facts presented with such a complete 180 degree twisting that they literally redefine black as white, but this does. It's an insidious masterpiece by a deceitful monster.