Law Commons^™

Startup Failure, Elizabeth Pollman

Duke Law Journal

Venture-backed startups famously aim for a successful “exit” by going public or selling to another company through an acquisition deal and achieving financial return for all equity holders. A different path, however, is vastly more likely to occur—failure. Although high-risk innovative ventures fail at exceedingly high rates, no scholarly account systematically explains what happens to these startups at the end of their life cycle.

This Article provides a theory of startup failure: how law and culture have shaped a system for dealing with the large number of startups that cannot reach an exit that will produce a financial return for …

Hawks And Doves: Evaluating Presidential Powers And Duties Against Congress's Power To Declare War, Andrea L. R. Pillai

Duke Law Journal

What would happen if Congress declared war against the president’s wishes? Would the president be forced to prosecute the war? Or are there mechanisms, whether through the system of checks and balances or the president’s own delegated, independent powers, that give the president the authority to disregard Congress’s declaration? This Note argues that a declaration of war must go through the process of bicameralism and presentment to be valid. Thus, the president has the authority to veto a declaration of war. If Congress overcomes the president’s veto, this Note concludes that the president must prosecute the war. The president does …

Journal Staff

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Fact Stripping, Joseph Blocher, Brandon L. Garrett

Duke Law Journal

Appellate fact review in constitutional litigation has never been more important. Whether someone’s rights were violated often turns on what happened—matters of fact—and not solely on matters of law. That makes it all the more striking that the U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly reversed rulings of lower courts based on factual disagreement, given that such factfinding is typically entitled to significant appellate deference. Scholars and would-be reformers have noted many problems with appellate factfinding, but have tended to assume that the Court itself has final say on the applicable standard of review.

Yet as a matter of constitutional law, the …

The Dead Hand Of A Silent Past: Bruen, Gun Rights, And The Shackles Of History, Jacob D. Charles

Duke Law Journal

In June 2022, the Supreme Court struck down New York’s concealed carry licensing law on Second Amendment grounds. In that decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court declared that future Second Amendment challenges should be evaluated solely with reference to text, history, and tradition. By requiring historical precedent for any modern regulation, that test is essentially sui generis in the Court’s individual-rights jurisprudence. Yet it represents both an extension of an increasingly historically focused Supreme Court case law and a harbinger of potential doctrinal transformations in other domains.

This Article critically assesses Bruen’s test and, …

Norm Commandeering And The Tobacco Trust, George F. K. Werner

Duke Law Journal

In the early 1870s, Durham became a major center of tobacco marketing. Farmers brought their crops to auction warehouses, which then sold them to the town’s manufacturers. This was a process facilitated by a well-developed system of social norms. But the formation of the American Tobacco Company’s “tobacco trust” in the 1890s threatened that arrangement—buyers conspired to pay less per pound of tobacco, and warehousemen lost the ability to police buyers’ conduct. When farmers attempted to organize in response, geographic and social distance caused their efforts to fail. By the time federal courts dissolved the trust in 1911, the damage …

The Last Black Tobacco Union: Local 208, Segregated Seniority, And The Integrating South, Kathy Rong Zhou

Duke Law Journal

After federal reforms in the 1930s protected the right to organize, the Tobacco Workers International Union made quick work of mobilizing the American South. Its unions, though segregated, made strides. Yet Black unions’ collective bargaining gains could not transcend one of the South’s most oppressive employment practices: segregated systems for worker seniority. One Black union, Local 208 at Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company in Durham, North Carolina, fought for seniority rights for more than three decades. During this time, the federal government increasingly pressured Southern industry and labor to desegregate. Steadfast, Local 208 refused to merge with any white union …

The Enforcement Value Of Disclosure, Stephanie Bornstein

Duke Law Journal

Information disclosures often “nudge” consumers to make better choices—for example, when manufacturers include nutrition labels on food packaging or fuel economy standards on cars. Yet having to disclose can have a nudge effect on the disclosing entity, too—for example, by incentivizing a manufacturer to make healthier food or more fuel-efficient cars. Recently, regulators around the world have begun to use information disclosures to improve racial and gender equality—for example, by requiring certain businesses to disclose information on things like harassment complaints, board diversity, and employee pay. But are such disclosure efforts worth their costs? And what would indicate that policymakers …

The Private Cost Of Behavioral Interventions, Avishalom Tor

Duke Law Journal

The increasing popularity of behavioral interventions—also known as nudges—is largely due to their perceived potential to promote public and private welfare at dramatically lower costs than those of traditional regulatory instruments, such as mandates or taxes. Yet, though nudges typically involve low implementation costs, scholars and policymakers alike tend to underestimate their often-substantial private costs. Once these costs are accounted for, most nudges turn out to generate significantly lower net benefits than assumed, and some prove less efficient or less cost-effective than traditional instruments. At other times, the private costs of behavioral interventions are sufficiently large to render them socially …

Nudges, Defaults, And The Problem Of Constructed Preferences, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Duke Law Journal

Regulatory bodies have increasingly become interested in “nudges,” or low-cost adjustments to the environment in which people make choices. These interventions promise to give more people what they truly want while preserving freedom of choice. In theory, default rules—a type of nudge—that can survive a thorough cost-benefit analysis should both preserve liberty and enhance welfare. In reality, altering default rules can also change people’s preferences. Neutral cost-benefit analysis is thus impossible, and choosing a default rule therefore influences personal freedom. This Article explains how nudges influence preferences and why this makes neutral cost-benefit analysis impossible for regulators.

Welfare Now, Cass R. Sunstein

Duke Law Journal

In evaluating interventions, policymakers should consider both their welfare effects, including their effects on people’s emotional states, and their effects on distributive justice, including their effects on those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The arguments for investigating welfare effects, and effects on distributive justice, are meant as objections to efforts to evaluate behaviorally informed interventions solely in terms of (for example) revealed preferences and effects on participation rates. The arguments are also meant as a plea for investigation and specification of the effects of such interventions on experienced well-being. If interventions give people a sense of security and …

Journal Staff

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Journal Staff

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

No Harm, No Problem (In State Court): Why States Should Reject Injury In Fact, Rebekah G. Strotman

Duke Law Journal

New judicial federalism urges states to extend their constitutional protections beyond the federal Constitution’s. Yet the scholarship has largely ignored justiciability doctrines—including standing—that dictate the requirements for suing in court. Meanwhile, the federal injury in fact requirement has been debated for years, with critics claiming it is ahistorical and overly restrictive. States, though, are not bound by Article III and can reject the federal standing doctrine. Some states have. In fact, the same year the Supreme Court doubled down on injury in fact by stating “no concrete harm, no standing,” the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected injury in fact and …

The Accidental Innovation Policymakers, Rachel E. Sachs

Duke Law Journal

Health care policymakers in the United States, particularly at the federal level, have recently considered a range of proposals that would lower prices for prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical industry and many politicians have argued that these proposals would harm innovation incentives, resulting in fewer new drugs coming to market in the future. This Article identifies and explores a key problem with this argument: that it is typically deployed both accidentally and asymmetrically in nature. Specifically, this Article considers previous changes to health laws that had the impact of increasing innovation incentives by providing large new subsidies to pharmaceutical companies—chiefly the …

Effecting Free Exercise And Equal Protection, Laura Portuondo

Duke Law Journal

There is an emerging discrepancy in free exercise and equal protection law. For decades, the Supreme Court has maintained that a law’s effects on a protected group are usually insufficient to trigger heightened scrutiny under either the Free Exercise or Equal Protection Clause. This longstanding rule has rendered it virtually impossible to challenge facially neutral laws on constitutional race, sex, and religious discrimination grounds, even where such laws inflict substantial harms on protected groups. Recent free exercise decisions, however, have abandoned this traditional barrier to enforcing constitutional equality rights. In doing so, they have subverted the usual rule that a …

Not Up For Deliberation: Expanding The Peña-Rodriguez Protection To Cover Jury Bias Against Lgbtq+ Individuals, Brett V. Ries

Duke Law Journal

Discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals persists within the United States criminal justice system, which is no surprise given the history of LGBTQ+ discrimination in the United States. Evidence of jurors convicting LGBTQ+ defendants—or, in some extreme cases, sentencing them to death—because of the defendant’s queer identity is especially concerning.

Standing in the way of protecting LGBTQ+ defendants from LGBTQ+ bias in jury deliberations is Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which prohibits defendants from using juror testimony regarding jury deliberations to impeach the jury’s verdict. However, in 2017, the Supreme Court in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado provided an exception to this “no-impeachment rule” …

Journal Staff

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Standardized Exclusion: A Theory Of Barrier Lock-In, Andrew Tisinger

Duke Law Journal

The United States has relaxed antitrust scrutiny of private standard-setting organizations in recognition of their potential procompetitive benefits. In the meantime, however, the growing importance of network industries—and the coinciding move toward vendor-led standards consortia—has welcomed new, insidious anticompetitive risks. This Note proffers one such risk: barrier lock-in. A theory of barrier lock-in recognizes that dominant vendors can capture and control standards consortia to keep standardized equipment complex and costly. These practices are exclusionary. This Note situates barrier lock-in within the existing antitrust literature and jurisprudence, provides a potential example of barrier lock-in in the 5G network equipment standardization process, …

The Many State Doctrines Of Forum Non Conveniens, William S. Dodge, Maggie Gardner, Christopher A. Whytock

Duke Law Journal

Forum non conveniens is not as ancient or monolithic as U.S. courts often assume. The doctrine, which permits judges to decline to hear cases they believe would more appropriately be heard in another sovereign’s courts, was only adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for use in nonadmiralty cases in 1947; the doctrine’s “deep roots in the common law” are thought instead to have grown in the states.

This Article tests that account by surveying the forum non conveniens doctrines of all fifty states and the District of Columbia. What we found should change how judges, practitioners, and scholars view the …

Solving The Valuation Challenge: The Ultra Method For Taxing Extreme Wealth, Brian Galle, David Gamage, Darien Shanske

Duke Law Journal

Recent reporting based on leaked tax returns of the ultrarich confirms what experts have long suspected: for the wealthiest Americans, paying taxes is mostly optional. Some of the country’s richest have reported annual taxable incomes that would be modest for a schoolteacher, even as the share of wealth held by the top .1 percent is at its highest in nearly a century.

Experts have long understood that one problem sits at the roots of many of the tax system’s failures to reach the very rich: valuation. Because it is difficult to appraise complex or unique assets, modern tax systems instead …

Legal Strategies To Minimize Subway Air Pollution In The United States, Maia Foster

Duke Law Journal

Air pollution in U.S. subway systems poses a major threat to public health. People in subway stations breathe in dangerously high levels of dusts, called particulate matter. Current legislation does not effectively address this problem; in fact, the United States does not have a comprehensive indoor air quality law at all. Left unregulated, people regularly exposed to subway air pollution could suffer respiratory and cardiovascular issues and even premature death.

To mitigate these health effects, some countries have imposed PM standards in subway systems and underground spaces. Others have standards covering all indoor spaces. In the United States, many subway …

The Puzzle Of Procedural Originalism, Mila Sohoni

Duke Law Journal

On a daily basis, lawyers and judges consult and apply the rules of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. These doctrines—the workhorses of procedural law—ostensibly spring from the Constitution’s text, but their substance owes more to considerations of fairness, efficiency, and sound policy than it does to original meaning. Indeed, these doctrines are among the most openly and obviously nonoriginalist doctrines in constitutional law. Curiously, the originalist movement has almost totally ignored this everyday terrain. That is beginning to change. Recent overtures by Supreme Court Justices suggest that originalists are now poised to advance into the field of civil procedure. …

Patent Forfeiture, Sean B. Seymore

Duke Law Journal

Patent law doesn’t look kindly on patent owners who engage in wrongdoing involving the patent. The U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts have refused to enforce patents tainted with inequitableness, fraud, or bad faith. This issue typically arises in patent litigation when an accused infringer asserts that the patent should be unenforceable if the patentee engaged in one of four proscribed activities: inequitable conduct (deliberate misrepresentations or omissions of material information from the Patent Office); patent misuse (anticompetitive licensing practices); unclean hands (business or litigation misconduct); or waiver/estoppel (a lack of candor before a standard-setting organization). This seems right—a patentee …

Building Trust(S): Rethinking Asset Return In Kleptocracy Forfeitures, Michael J. Biondi

Duke Law Journal

Kleptocracy, literally meaning “rule by thieves,” is a major destabilizing force in an already unstable world. Every year, corrupt government officials plunder billions of dollars rightfully belonging to their citizens and export them overseas. When these funds—often parked in luxury assets—reach the United States, federal prosecutors can seize them using a procedure known as nonconviction-based forfeiture. But after every such seizure, a question arises: How does the United States give stolen assets back to whom they belong? The United Nations Convention Against Corruption strongly encourages (or, in some circumstances, requires) forfeited assets to be returned to their state of origin …

Journal Staff

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Token Wars: How The Sec Can Learn To Embrace Utility Tokens, Paul K. Drexler

Duke Law Journal

Tired of the power that mega platforms wield over the web, a growing chorus of internet users has hailed the arrival of blockchain technology, believing it can be used to build a new internet. Called “Web 3.0” by some, the new internet would allow users to exchange goods and services—digital currencies, cloud computing power, data storage—without needing a central intermediary to validate transactions. Instead, users would transact through decentralized platforms that use consensus-based mechanisms to verify users’ exchanges. And rather than rely on fiat money, users would use the platforms’ native currencies, called “utility tokens,” as the media of exchange. …

Prescribing A Change To The Fda's Drug Labeling Rules After The 21st Century Cures Act, P. Sydney Engle

Duke Law Journal

Signed into law in 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act offers new hope to patients by empowering the FDA to expedite review of innovative, potentially lifesaving drugs. But these expedited approvals raise the risk that pivotal drug safety and efficacy data will not arise until after the drug is already on the market. The Cures Act failed to respond to two key aspects of shifting the discovery of safety and efficacy data to the postmarket phase. First, the Cures Act did not correspondingly enhance the FDA’s authority to require manufacturers to generate and disclose postmarket information. Second, it did not …

Not So Civil Commitment: A Proposal For Statutory Reform Grounded In Procedural Justice, Margaret J. Lederer

Duke Law Journal

Every year, millions of Americans struggle with serious mental illness. Of them, thousands experience civil, or involuntary, commitment—that is, hospitals invoke the coercive power of the state to force these individuals into psychiatric hospitals against their will. Whether someone requires hospitalization is a complex question of psychology, medicine, and substantive law.

But the process of civil commitment itself is troubling. Across the board, states fail to afford those facing civil commitment meaningful procedural protections. Current state laws subject individuals facing commitment to extended periods of confinement with little to no judicial intervention. Indeed, individuals facing commitment may wait weeks or …

Digital Habit Evidence, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson

Duke Law Journal

This Article explores how “habit evidence” will become a catalyst for a new form of digital proof based on the explosive growth of smart homes, smart cars, smart devices, and the Internet of Things. Habit evidence is the rule that certain sorts of semiautomatic, regularized responses to particular stimuli are trustworthy and thus admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 406 “Habit; Routine Practice” and state equivalents.

While well established since the common law, “habit” has made only an inconsistent appearance in reported cases and has been underutilized in trial practice. But intriguingly, once applied to the world of …