Print
Essay
84 Special
Justice Scalia’s Other Standing Legacy
Tara Leigh Grove
Professor of Law, William and Mary Law School; Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School.

I am grateful to Curt Bradley, Aaron Bruhl, Neal Devins, Vicki Jackson, Alli Larsen, Henry Monaghan, Jonathan Nash, and Jim Pfander for helpful comments on earlier drafts. I also appreciate the suggestions of participants at a faculty workshop at William and Mary Law School.

Everyone in the legal community knows about Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife.

Print
Essay
84 Special
Scalia in the Casebooks
Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; JD 2000, Harvard Law School; Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, 2001–2002.

I am deeply indebted to my colleague Ed Cheng for his insights on the data analysis.

Paulson K. Varghese
JD Candidate 2018, Vanderbilt Law School.

In the time since Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death, much has been written about what his influence has been and what his influence will be. It is said that, perhaps more than any of his predecessors, he shaped how lawyers, judges, and even laypeople see the role of unelected federal judges in a democratic society.

Print
Article
84 Special
Originalism as a Constraint on Judges
William Baude
Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School.

I appreciate helpful and timely comments from Samuel Bray, Jud Campbell, Jonathan Mitchell, Richard Primus, Richard Re, Stephen Sachs, Lawrence Solum, and the editors of The University of Chicago Law Review, as well as research support from the SNR Denton Fund and the Alumni Faculty Fund.

One of Justice Antonin Scalia’s greatest legacies is his promotion of constitutional originalism.

Print
Essay
84 Special
Congressional Insiders and Outsiders
Amy Coney Barrett
Diane and M.O. Miller II Research Chair in Law and Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School.

When Justice Antonin Scalia began writing about statutory interpretation, he attacked the then-dominant proposition that the point of statutory interpretation is to identify and enforce Congress’s unenacted purposes.

Print
Book review
84.4
The Nefarious Intentions of the Framers?
Paul Finkelman
President, Gratz College in Melrose Park, Pennsylvania. Also currently serves as Fulbright Chair in Human Rights and Social Justice, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, and John E. Murray Visiting Professor, University of Pittsburgh School of Law

The timing of Professor Michael Klarman’s The Framers’ Coup is fortuitous. Under a never-used constitutional provision, twenty-eight states have asked for a convention to write a balanced budget amendment.

Print
Comment
84.4
The Label Test: Simplifying the Tax Injunction Act after NFIB v Sebelius
Brett J. Wierenga
BA 2014, Hillsdale College; MSc 2015, University of Oxford; JD Candidate 2018, The University of Chicago Law School

In National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius (“NFIB”), the Supreme Court maintained both its jurisdiction over the case and the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by threading the needle between the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) and Congress’s taxing power under the Constitution.

Print
Comment
84.4
Testing for Multisided Platform Effects in Antitrust Market Definition
Patrick R. Ward
JD/PhD (Economics) Candidate, The University of Chicago

The author wishes to thank Professor Randal Picker as well as Mila Rusafova, Emily Samra, and the members of The University of Chicago Law Review for their helpful thoughts and suggestions.

Given myriad business practices and conditions, establishing certain antitrust harms requires context.

Print
Comment
84.4
Mrs. Orville Isn’t Trying to Steal Tips: An FLSA Story
Benjamin Meyer
BA 2013, Wheaton College (IL); JD Candidate 2018, The University of Chicago Law School

A debate over tips and tipped employees, centered on a few provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), has arisen among the circuits. Despite turning on only a few phrases in the FLSA, this judicial divide has massive implications for the restaurant and hospitality industries.

Print
Article
84.4
Regulation by Threat: Dodd-Frank and the Nonbank Problem
Daniel Schwarcz
Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School

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.

David Zaring
Associate Professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

The global financial crisis was much more than a disaster for banks.