84.4

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.

Print
Article
84.4
The Myth of Fourth Amendment Circularity
Matthew B. Kugler
Assistant Professor, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

The authors thank Jane Bambauer, Tim Casey, Adam Chilton, Shari Seidman Diamond, Tom Ginsburg, Daniel Hemel, Bert Huang, Aziz Huq, Orin Kerr, Joshua Kleinfeld, Andy Koppelman, Genevieve Lakier, Katerina Linos, Jonathan Masur, Richard McAdams, Janice Nadler, Martha Nussbaum, Laura Pedraza-Fariña, Michael Pollack, Uriel Procaccia, John Rappaport, Richard Re, Victoria Schwartz, Christine Scott-Hayward, Nadav Shoked, Chris Slobogin, Deborah Tuerkheimer, Matt Tokson, and Laura Weinrib, as well as workshop participants at Northwestern University Law School, the University of Chicago Law School, the American Law and Economics Association conference, and the Privacy Law Scholars Conference for comments on earlier drafts, the Carl S. Lloyd Faculty Fund for research support, and Michelle Hayner for helpful research assistance.

Lior Jacob Strahilevitz
Sidley Austin Professor of Law, University of Chicago
It is very difficult to find any proposition in Fourth Amendment law to which every judge, lawyer, and scholar subscribes.
Print
Article
84.4
From Treaties to International Commitments: The Changing Landscape of Foreign Relations Law
Jean Galbraith
Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School

For comments, I am grateful to Kristen Boon, Curt Bradley, Stephen Burbank, Cary Coglianese, Bill Ewald, Oona Hathaway, Sophia Lee, Zach Price, Beth Simmons, the editors of the University of Chicago Law Review, and participants at the 2016 Yale-Duke Foreign Relations Law Roundtable, the University of Pennsylvania Law School faculty retreat, and the Seton Hall University School of Law faculty workshop. For assistance with sources, I thank Gabriela Femenia of the Penn Law Library.

In his farewell address, George Washington urged that “[t]he great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is . . . to have with them as little political connection as possible.”