Deliberation and Insight: Bloch v Frischholz and the “Chicago School” of Judicial Behavior
I am grateful to Jajah Wu for research assistance and to Douglas Baird, Rosalind Dixon, Saul Levmore, Victor Quintanilla, and Adam Samaha for comments on an earlier draft.
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Deliberation and Insight: Bloch v Frischholz and the “Chicago School” of Judicial Behavior on Facebook
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Deliberation and Insight: Bloch v Frischholz and the “Chicago School” of Judicial Behavior on Twitter
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Deliberation and Insight: Bloch v Frischholz and the “Chicago School” of Judicial Behavior on Email
- Share The University of Chicago Law Review | Deliberation and Insight: Bloch v Frischholz and the “Chicago School” of Judicial Behavior on LinkedIn
How often do appellate judges change their minds, and their votes? Once a case has been decided by a panel, the record is what it is, and it would not be surprising if meticulous and intellectually confident judges were rarely swayed in an en banc rehearing. But the question in general needs further study.
She graduated from Tel-Aviv University and Harvard Law School. Named as one of the most cited legal scholars in the United States, and specifically the most cited scholar in employment law and one of the most cited in law and technology, she is influential in her field. Professor Lobel has served on President Obama’s policy team on innovation and labor market competition, has advised the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and has published multiple books to critical acclaim. Her latest book, The Equality Machine, is an Economist Best Book of the Year.
This Essay argues for the development of more robust—and balanced—law that focuses not only on the risks, but also the potential, that AI brings. In turn, it argues that there is a need to develop a framework for laws and policies that incentivize and, at times, mandate transitions to AI-based automation. Automation rights—the right to demand and the duty to deploy AI-based technology when it outperforms human-based action—should become part of the legal landscape. A rational analysis of the costs and benefits of AI deployment would suggest that certain high-stakes circumstances compel automation because of the high costs and risks of not adopting the best available technologies. Inevitably, the rapid advancements in machine learning will mean that law soon must embrace AI; accelerate deployment; and, under certain circumstances, prohibit human intervention as a matter of fairness, welfare, and justice.
She thanks Matthew Makowski, Abigail Barney, Annie Kors, and Maggie Niu for their very helpful comments.
Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision is clear: if an employee complains about employment discrimination, it is illegal for an employer to retaliate against them.
The authors thank Jacob Charles, Charanya Krishnaswami, and Alex Platt for insightful comments and suggestions.
On November 19, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of homicide charges stemming from his killing of two people—Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum—at a protest of police violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse had armed himself and traveled to the protest, purportedly to defend Kenoshans’ property against looting.