This Essay compares a judicial revolution that is happening to one that is not. Both the change and the status quo are being managed by the current Supreme Court. That Court has, when it comes to administrative law, shown a capacity to revisit everything. But when it comes to securities regulation, it has resisted change. What is the explanation for this divergent approach between general regulation, which the Court has sought to police, and securities regulation, which the Court has left alone? Some scholars have argued that the Supreme Court is simply uninterested in securities regulation, but the Court now hears proportionately more securities cases than it once did. Others dispute the premise that the Court supports corporate America. And, of course, the Roberts Court could change its approach to securities regulation in time. But I think the divergence suggests that the Court wants to police public rights and rights against the state but is less interested in reformulating the standards for private disputes, such as disputes between shareholders and managers.
David Zaring
Thanks to Benjamin Barton, Adam Chilton, Brian Feinstein, Jonathan Nash, and Anne Joseph O’Connell for invaluable comments, and to Michelle Mohr for research assistance. © 2020, David Zaring.
In the 1950s, American corporate executives were overwhelmingly white, male, and valued progression within well-defined hierarchies over creativity.
Portions of this Article draw on the authors’ testimony to Congress and amicus briefs in MetLife, Inc v FSOC. For helpful comments and suggestions, we thank Hilary Allen, Chris Brummer, Peter Conti-Brown, Jeff Gordon, Claire Hill, Bob Hockett, Brett McDonald, Saule Omarova, Richard Painter, Christina Skinner, and Margaret Tahyar, and the audiences at presentations at Cambridge, Oxford, Columbia Business School, the University of Connecticut, the University of Minnesota, Georgetown Law Center, Wharton, and the Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research. Thanks to Jayme Wiebold for research assistance.
The global financial crisis was much more than a disaster for banks.
Volumes
- Volume 92.3May2025
- Volume 92.2March2025
- Volume 92.1January2025
- Volume 91.8December2024
- Volume 91.7November2024
- Volume 91.6October2024
- Volume 91.5September2024
- Volume 91.4June2024
- Volume 91.3May2024
- Volume 91.2March2024
- Volume 91.1January2024
- Volume 90.8December2023
- Volume 90.7November2023
- Volume 90.6October2023
- Volume 90.5September2023
- Volume 90.4June2023
- Volume 90.3May2023
- Volume 90.2March2023
- Volume 90.1January2023
- Volume 89.8December2022
- Volume 89.7November2022
- Volume 89.6October2022
- Volume 89.5September2022
- Volume 89.4June2022
- Volume 89.3May2022
- Volume 89.2March2022
- Volume 89.1January2022
- Volume 88.8December2021
- v88.6October2021
- v88.4June2021
- v88.3May2021
- 87.1January2020
- 84.4Fall2017
- 84.3Summer2017
- 84.2Spring2017
- 84.1Winter2017
- 84 SpecialNovember2017
- 81.3Summer2014
- 80.1Winter2013
- 78.1Winter2011