Justifying Jones
On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court decided Jones v Harris Associates, an appeal from an opinion written by Judge Frank Easterbrook. Easterbrook has a remarkable record when the Supreme Court has reviewed his opinions, and the Jones decision was a rare rebuke. He is twice as likely to be affirmed as other courts of appeals judges—the Court has affirmed him nearly 65 percent of the time, compared with an average of about 35 percent for all courts of appeals judges.
The authors thank Deyaa Alriwishdi, Cody Corliss, Janka Deli, Assaf Harpaz, Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, Lawrence Liu, Asaf Lubin, Natalie McCauley, Trang (Mae) Nguyen, Miyoko Pettit-Toledo, Charlie Trumbull, and Kate Yoon for very helpful comments and suggestions on the project. Thanks also to the Junior International Law Scholars Association for providing both the impetus for this project and a platform to receive feedback, and to the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review Online for their confidence in the project and thoughtful editorial guidance. All errors are the authors’ alone.
The U.S. government exerts powerful pressure on parties around the world through its use of unilateral economic sanctions. Oftentimes, this involves prohibiting U.S. corporate and natural persons from doing business with certain foreign jurisdictions, entities and individuals, or industries. A less noticed way the U.S. regulates conduct abroad is by prohibiting all transactions with sanctioned parties that simply pass through the U.S. financial system. This Essay examines the role of currency-based jurisdiction in U.S. sanctions practice by introducing a novel data set of enforcement actions and reveals that a controversial but largely overlooked jurisdictional basis in fact represents a cornerstone of current practice.
This Essay explores the future of legal prediction markets. Part I explains how markets work and what makes them hard to beat. Part II then turns to the largest legal prediction market to date: the outcome of Learning Resources. Finally, Part III considers whether markets are well-suited to forecasting legal outcomes, both in principle and in practice.
We would like to thank the participants of the How AI Will Change the Law Symposium, cohosted by the Coase-Sandor Institute, the University of Chicago Law Review Online, and Oxford Business Law Blog, for their helpful comments.
We would like to thank the participants of the How AI Will Change the Law Symposium, cohosted by the Coase-Sandor Institute, the University of Chicago Law Review Online, and Oxford Business Law Blog, for their helpful comments.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to alter the interpretation of the duties of care, skill, and diligence. As these duties form the foundation for the BJR and equivalent provisions, the development of AI is also expected to impact the BJR. There is a broadening importance, in an increasingly data-driven business environment, of the requirement to gather sufficient information before making a decision and to use information in a valid manner. Changes are both quantitative (how much information to collect) and qualitative (which types of information to collect). The changes also relate to the methods of decision-making, including the role of measures and statistics over intuition.