Law and Philosophy

Print
Essay
Volume 91.7
The New Capitalism, the Old Capitalism, and the Administrative State
Gregory A. Mark
Professor of Law, College of Law, DePaul University. B.A. Butler University 1979; M.A. American History, Harvard University 1980; J.D. University of Chicago 1988.

My thanks to Caitlin Hamilton and Emma Martinez for assistance with this Essay. For
Dennis Hutchinson, who embodies the essence of deep professional and personal friendship.

This Essay concerns the evolving relationship between the economy and the methods society deployed to legitimate, control, and channel economic behavior, especially religion and law. Using the recently published work of three eminent academics—Benjamin Friedman, Jonathan Levy, and William Novak—it addresses first the changes in thought necessary to legitimate acquisitive economic behavior and the consequent centering of law as the secular replacement for religion. As capitalism fostered wider markets, as its evolution embodied industrialism and commercialism, it created problems that the regulatory state could not handle. In America, the transition from regulatory to administrative state was complicated by its federal structure and background democratic egalitarian yearnings. Friedman, Levy, and Novak illustrate and elucidate aspects of that evolution. This Essay suggests that reading them together explains more than each separately, and ends by noting how the tensions they explain usefully add to our understanding of American law, and, coincidentally, the potentially transformational administrative law decisions of the Supreme Court in the 2023–2024 term.

Print
Comment
v88.6
In Search of Ordinary Meaning: What Can Be Learned from the Textualist Opinions of Bostock v. Clayton County?
Sam Capparelli
B.S. 2018, The George Washington University; J.D. Candidate 2022, The University of Chicago Law School.

Many thanks to Professor Brian Leiter, Samuel Kane, Crofton Kelly, Tony Leyh, Jennifer Chang, Tony Alessi, Kelly Gregg, George Colligan, and all of the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review for their comments and advice.

What is the meaning of the phrase “discriminate because of sex”? This was the key question the Supreme Court faced in Bostock v. Clayton County.