Right after the legal name change by the Board of Trustees (BoT) ... the Board of Regents (BoR) sued to establish that under the Louisiana Constitution of the early 70’s only "WE the BoR" can make a name change.
The Judge recognized that under the LA Constitution the BoT had separate but equal powers. While the Constitution names the BoR in its language a single sentence stated that the BoT had the same powers given to the BoR. The Judge recognized this and the BoR lost its case.
If it stopped there the name change would have been upheld.
However the Judge simultaneously devised a way to undo the name change by making a ruling beyond the original suit. He solved the sticky problem by declaring that neither the BoR nor the BoT could make a name change. (Even though it had been done in the past.)
Stopping the "Name Change" was not enough for the BoR, they simply could not live with losing an inalienable right, they knew it and everyone knew it except the Judge They appealed.
Fortunately for the BoR the Legislature was still mostly comprised of the Legislature who had established the Louisiana Constitution 11 years prior. They knew as a body it was the legal right of the BoR & BoT to make name changes and within a few months showed this by passing a Law that undid the Judges ruling when they returned the inalienable name change 'right' back to the BoR (but not the BoT) with a few new hoops to jump through.
The ecstatic BoR then requested have their appeal dropped . . . except it wasn't and went through the 'etch in stone' process.
I still don't know how they were able to rewrite the "same powers" portion of the Constitution???
As I said this is just a loose interpretation.
Here is a link to parts of the Case you may be able to glean a case# from No. 84-CA-1008