Displaying 31 - 40 of 1303

In the last few years, the Supreme Court has upended its doctrine of religious freedom under the First Amendment. Now, the government must treat religion equally with respect to providing public benefits. But it must also grant special exemptions from regulations that burden religion. We refer to this regime as structural preferentialism. This Article offers an external, political account of changes in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause jurisprudence by analyzing them as if they were the result of political conflicts between competing interest groups. Focusing on the role of religion in political polarization, rapid disaffiliation from denominations, and shifting strategies to fund religious schools, this political perspective has explanatory and predictive power that extends beyond conventional legal arguments about text, history, and precedent. Applying this approach, we predict that structural preferentialism will transform First Amendment doctrine and provide material grounds for its own entrenchment.

Chapter 11 was widely viewed as a failure in the first decade of the Bankruptcy Code’s operation, the 1980s. While basic bankruptcy still has its critics and few would say it works perfectly, the contrast with bankruptcy today is stark: bankruptcies that took years in the 1980s take months in the 2020s. Multiple changes explain bankruptcy’s success and we do not challenge their relevance. But in our analysis, one major change is missing from the current understanding of bankruptcy’s success: bankruptcy courts and practice in the 1980s rejected market value; today bankruptcy courts and practice accept and use market value. This shift is a major explanation for bankruptcy’s success. We argue that valuation improvements explain much of the increased speed and efficiency of Chapter 11 practice over the decades. We provide evidence that valuation conflicts narrowed and that the corporate reorganization process accelerated. The switch to market thinking across the bankruptcy spectrum—in bankruptcy transactions, in judging, and in lawyering—goes far in explaining why.

This Essay explores the two holy grails of AI and the law: predicting court decisions and predicting contracts. While there is some overlap between the two, because in order to draft contracts one needs to know the law, both issues can be functionally distinguished. These two areas, and their importance in the context of increasing AI development, are explored more deeply within the context of corporate insolvency law.

This Essay focuses largely on structural responses to AI pricing in antitrust, outlining the bulk of its argument in the context of merger law but also considers monopolization law and exclusionary conduct. It argues that the relationship between the strictness of the law and the sophistication of AI pricing is not straightforward. In the short run, a stricter approach to merger review might well make sense, but as AI pricing becomes more sophisticated, merger policy ought to become less strict: if anticompetitive outcomes are inevitable with or without a merger because of highly sophisticated AI pricing, antitrust interventions to stop mergers will not affect pricing and instead will create social losses by impeding efficient acquisitions. This Essay considers similar questions in the context of monopolization. It concludes by observing that the rise of AI pricing will strengthen the case for antitrust law to shift its focus away from high prices and static allocative inefficiency and toward innovation and dynamic efficiency.

Causal AI is within reach. It has the potential to trigger nothing less than a conceptual revolution in the law. This Essay explains why and takes a cautious look into the crystal ball. Causation is an elusive concept in many disciplines—not only the law, but also science and statistics. Even the most up-to-date artificial intelligence systems do not “understand” causation, as they remain limited to the analysis of text and images. It is a long-standing statistical axiom that it is impossible to infer causation from the correlation of variables in datasets. This thwarts the extraction of causal relations from observational data. But important advances in computer science will enable us to distinguish between mere correlation and factual causation. At the same time, artificially intelligent systems are beginning to learn how to “think causally.”

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.

Professor Monica Haymond’s Intervention and Universal Remedies article invites scholars to focus on the distinctive ways that public law litigation plays out in practice. This Essay takes up her challenge. By questioning common assumptions at the core of structural-reform litigation, this Essay explains the dangers of consent decrees, settlements, and broad precedents. It then goes on to argue that intervention is an important check on these risks, and should be much more freely available in structural reform cases.

The Roberts Court has made protecting “the privacies of life” a catchphrase of Fourth Amendment law in the digital era. The time is thus ripe for revisiting the doctrinal and political roots of this newly influential quote from the Court’s 1886 decision Boyd v. United States. This Article makes a novel argument that Boyd and its elevation of protecting the “privacies of life” to an animating principle of the Fourth Amendment was instead a product of Reconstruction and its dismantlement. Fourth Amendment privacy was produced by and helped secure Reconciliation—the process through which White Americans North and South, Democrat and Republican came together to limit Reconstruction, preserve White supremacy, and pave the way for the violent disenfranchisement of newly freed Black men. The Article concludes by considering the divergent doctrinal implications of resituating Boyd and Fourth Amendment privacy in the politics of Reconciliation.

States increasingly deploy aggressive preemption measures against disfavored localities. Scholars have raised the alarm, but cities’ subordinate legal status leaves them disempowered. To push back, municipal advocates need to thoroughly understand the complex bilateral relationship between cities and their states. That is where I come in. As Mayor of a progressive city in a conservative state, I swim in the hostile symbiosis that characterizes city-state relations. By drawing on real-life examples, closed-door conversations, and previously private documents, my coauthor and I demonstrate the potence of multi-pronged city power. We synthesize our stories into a thicker account of state motivation, and then showcase the city’s “toolbox” for limiting state preemption. That process unearths preemption’s next frontier. Post-enactment state preemption, or “post-emption,” occurs when a state retroactively nullifies a specific, already-passed municipal law. It has been widely acknowledged but not individually distinguished. Analyzing it independently reveals that it is already ubiquitous and likely to proliferate. Post-emption thus warrants individualized normative assessment, and this Essay begins that surprisingly nuanced discussion.

Everyone owes each other a duty of ordinary care—but what is “ordinary”? How does one act reasonably to meet this burden? This Comment analyzes the current reasonable person standard for disabled plaintiffs and the corresponding duty of “ordinary care” provided by defendants through a critical disability studies lens. The current system of tort law burdens disabled plaintiffs with accommodating themselves, rather than requiring defendants to include accessible care in meeting their duty of ordinary care. To make the distribution of accommodative labor more equitable, this Comment proposes three stackable changes: (1) courts should reinterpret defendants’ duty of ordinary care to include care of individuals with disabilities by eliminating the doctrine that tortfeasors owe accommodations to people with disabilities only if they are on notice of their disabilities; (2) courts could further shift the balance of accommodative labor by factoring the mental and physical cost of accommodating oneself into the reasonable care inquiry when the plaintiff is disabled; and (3) courts could eliminate comparative negligence for plaintiffs with disabilities to address the problematic “reasonable person with a disability” standard. This Comment also explores theoretical, doctrinal, and normative justifications while creating space for a more robust dialogue on how the law treats disability as “extra”—but not ordinary.