Today is the 112th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v. New York. Never has the republic needed the type of judicial engagement that was on display in Lochner more than it does today. Professor Barnett explains.
These views are mine alone, but they should be yours, too.
As long as a court can conceive of a justification for some challenged laws, then it will decline to intervene. This conceivable justification does not have to be a good one, and the government does not even have to offer, much less prove, one! This is an extremely deferential, pro-government standard of review. (Keep reading)
One of my former law professors is undoubtedly correct in his positive statements of antitrust law. Where I part ways with him in considering whether it should apply to an agreement between BMW, Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and California to develop greener cars is that I am not persuaded that the agreement will promote consumer welfare. (Keep reading)
That’s the title of a scholarly article I wrote as a third-year law student that the Oregon Law Review published, and which was cited approvingly in a federal court case, earlier this year. (Keep reading)
The American left ought to recognize that the Federalist Society, at least in some respects, disciplines the excesses of modern conservatism by mainstreaming classical liberal ideas. (Keep reading)
My new law review paper examines the States’ disparate approaches to policing coordination between candidates and independent expenditure groups. (Keep reading)
Today is the 112th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v. New York. Never has the republic needed the type of judicial engagement that was on display in Lochner more than it does today. Professor Barnett explains.
Tennessee progressives misunderstand the vertical distribution of power between Washington and the states compared to that of the Volunteer State and its municipalities. (Keep reading)
Senate Republicans did not “steal” a seat from Merrick Garland, President Obama, or the Democrats. They simply declined to consider him at all, which they are well within their prerogative to do under the Constitution. (Keep reading)
Pro Publica ridiculously calls the Federalist Society a “secretive” organization. Their memory seems awfully short. (Keep reading)
Grant Starrett offers a pithy response to Senator Chuck Schumer threat to filibuster Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. (Keep reading)