Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Federalism And Antitrust Reform, Herbert J. Hovenkamp Oct 2005

Federalism And Antitrust Reform, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Currently the Antitrust Modernization Commission is considering numerous proposals for adjusting the relationship between federal antitrust authority and state regulation. This essay examines two areas that have produced a significant amount of state-federal conflict: state regulation of insurance and the state action immunity for general state regulation. It argues that no principle of efficiency, regulatory theory, or federalism justifies the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which creates an antitrust immunity for state regulation of insurance. What few benefits the Act confers could be fully realized by an appropriate interpretation of the state action doctrine. Second, the current formulation of the antitrust state action …


Interview With Timothy J. Carson, David Spiegel, Timothy J. Carson, Legal Oral History Project, University Of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Apr 2005

Interview With Timothy J. Carson, David Spiegel, Timothy J. Carson, Legal Oral History Project, University Of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

Legal Oral History Project

For transcript, click the Download button above. For video index, click the link below.

TImothy J. Carson (W '70) has practiced in Philadelphia for forty years in the field of public sector law, especially public finance. He is currently a partner at Dilworth Paxson LLP. He is an elected Fellow of the American College of Bond Counsel.


Managing Gerrymandering, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2005

Managing Gerrymandering, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

Last spring, in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering for the first time since having held such claims justiciable, 18 years earlier, in Davis v. Bandemer. Vieth was a fractured decision. All nine Justices agreed that partisan gerrymandering is of constitutional moment, a substantial majority declaring that excessive partisanship is unconstitutional. The Justices also united in rejecting the particular gerrymandering test advanced in Bandemer. There agreement ended. Four Justices proposed three tests to replace the unmeetable Bandemer standard. A four-member plurality would have overruled Bandemer more completely by holding that partisan gerrymandering claims …