Print Archive

Print
Article
86.2
Personalizing Mandatory Rules in Contract Law
Omri Ben-Shahar
Leo and Eileen Herzel Professor of Law, The University of Chicago.

We thank Oren Bar-Gill and participants in The University of Chicago Law Review Symposium on Personalized Law for their comments, and Tal Abuloff and Tom Zur for excellent research assistance.

Ariel Porat
Alain Poher Professor of Law at Tel Aviv University and Fischel-Neil Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at The University of Chicago.
Mandatory rules in contract law are meant to protect people from “bad” terms.
Print
Article
86.2
Algorithmic Price Discrimination When Demand Is a Function of Both Preferences and (Mis)perceptions
Oren Bar-Gill
William J. Friedman and Alicia Townsend Friedman Professor of Law and Economics, Harvard Law School.

For helpful comments and suggestions, I would like to thank Omri Ben-Shahar, Yochai Benkler, Ryan Bubb, Glenn Cohen, Hanoch Dagan, Avihay Dorfman, Noah Feldman, Meirav Furth-Matzkin, Assaf Hamdani, Howell Jackson, Louis Kaplow, Alon Klement, Roy Kreitner, Tamar Kricheli-Katz, Adi Leibovitch, Adi Libson, Da Lin, Ariel Porat, Mark Ramseyer, Steve Shavell, Holger Spamann, Cass Sunstein, Doron Teichman, Eyal Zamir, and workshop and conference participants at Harvard University, Hebrew University, New York University, Tel-Aviv University, The University of Chicago, and the annual meeting of the Israeli Law and Economics Association.

To maximize profits, sellers like to engage in price discrimination—to set higher prices for consumers who are willing to pay more and lower prices for consumers who are willing to pay less.
Print
Book review
86.1
The New Legal Liberalism
Emma Kaufman
Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law, The University of Chicago Law School

For helpful conversations and feedback, I am grateful to Will Baude, Emily Buss, Travis Crum, Justin Driver, William Hubbard, Lucy Kaufman, Brian Leiter, Jonathan Masur, Wendy Moffat, John Rappaport, David Strauss, Laura Weinrib, and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review.

Over the past three decades, legal academics have mounted a sustained attack on the traditional liberal idea that judges protect minority rights against majority will.

Print
Article
86.1
Taking Data
Michael C. Pollack
Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

I am grateful to Miriam Baer, William Baude, Maureen Brady, Christopher Buccafusco, David Carlson, Nestor Davidson, Myriam Gilles, Ben Grunwald, Daniel Hemel, Michael Herz, Orin Kerr, Timothy Mulvaney, Luke Norris, John Rappaport, Shelley Ross Saxer, Ric Simmons, Edward Stein, James Stern, Stewart Sterk, Lior Strahilevitz, Matthew Tokson, Felix Wu, Stephen Yelderman, and participants in the AALS New Voices in Property Law Workshop, Cardozo Junior Faculty Workshop, Law and Society Annual Meeting, Mid-Atlantic Junior Faculty Forum at the University of Richmond Law School, and Southeastern Association of Law Schools New Scholars Workshop for their guidance, suggestions, comments, and critiques. I thank the Stephen B. Siegel Program in Real Estate Law for research support.

On February 16, 2016, a federal court ordered Apple to “assist law enforcement agents in enabling the search” of an iPhone that had been lawfully seized during the investigation into a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.

Print
Article
86.1
An Empirical Analysis of Sexual Orientation Discrimination
J. Shahar Dillbary
Professor of Law at The University of Alabama School of Law. BA in Law, LLB in Economics, Bar-Ilan University; LLM, JSD, The University of Chicago Law School

We would like to thank Yonathan Arbel, Ronen Avraham, David Bernstein, Bill Brewbaker, the Honorable Joseph Colquitt, Mirit Eyal-Cohen, Richard Delgado, Bryan Fair, Ron Krotoszynski, Susan Lyons, Jonathan Nash, Caryn Roseman, Stephen Rushin, Daiquiri Steele, Fred Vars, the participants in the 2017 Midwestern Law and Economics Association Conference, the 2018 American Law and Economics Association Conference and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s combined Workshop on Fair Lending and the Office of Research for their helpful comments; and Shannon McLaughlin, Joshua Polk, Laura Stephenson, and Nic Nivison for their excellent research assistance. We also want to thank an anonymous referee for insightful comments and suggestions. We are indebted to Blake Beals for his help in assembling the municipal database. Authors are ordered alphabetically.

Griffin Edwards
Assistant Professor of Business at The University of Alabama, Birmingham, Collat School of Business. PhD in Economics, Emory University.
Twenty years ago, a gay couple entered their local bank in Arroyo Grande, California to ask for a mortgage loan.
Print
Book review
85.8
How Not to Regulate
Lisa Heinzerling
Justice William J. Brennan, Jr, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

In the earliest days of his presidency, Donald Trump issued an executive order that exemplifies a common attitude toward regulation today. President Trump ordered federal administrative agencies to revoke at least two regulations for every one they issued and to cut regulatory costs without considering the benefits lost.

Print
Comment
85.8
To Move or Not to Move? That Is the Metaphysical Question
David J. Sandefer
BA 2016, Auburn University; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

Philosophers have long pondered the metaphysical meaning of an object’s “location” or the “where of a thing.”

Print
Comment
85.8
Waiving Chevron
Jeremy D. Rozansky
AB 2012, University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2019, University of Chicago Law School

I wish to thank William Baude, Brian Feinstein, Daniel Hemel, Aziz Huq, Aaron Nielson, Jennifer Nou, Adam J. White, and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review for setting me on the right track and improving the Comment at every stage

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc has been a boon for federal agencies.

Print
Article
85.8
The Constitutionality of Income-Based Fines
Alec Schierenbeck
JD, Stanford Law School, 2015

The author thanks Robert Weisberg, Beth Colgan, Alexandra Brodsky, Emma Kaufman, Andrew Rohrbach, and Gary Dyal for their generous guidance and comments. Special thanks to the student editors who labored to improve this piece: John Butterfield, Megan Coggeshall, Blake Eaton, Carly Gibbs, Jordan G. Golds, Jing Jin, Matthew LaGrone, Valentina Oliver, Eric Petry, Kimon Triantafyllou, and Lael Weinberger. All errors are mine.

When Americans break the law—whether it’s a minor offense like littering or a serious crime like felony assault—they tend to face the same financial penalties, no matter their income.

Print
Comment
85.7
Inferentialism, Title VII, and Legal Concepts
Lee Farnsworth
BA 2012, Dartmouth College; JD Candidate 2019, The University of Chicago Law School

Of all the things that judges do, central to those activities is saying what the law is, which means saying what the words in statutes mean.