Law Commons^™

Price Gouging In A Pandemic, Christopher Buccafusco, Daniel Hemel, Eric L. Talley

Faculty Scholarship

The COVID-19 pandemic led to acute supply shortages across the country as well as concerns over price increases amid surging demand. In the process, it reawakened a debate about whether and how to regulate “price gouging” — a controversy that continues as inflation has accelerated even as the pandemic abates. Animating this debate is a longstanding conflict between laissez-faire economics, which champions price fluctuations as a means to allocate scarce goods, and perceived norms of consumer fairness, which are thought to cut strongly against sharp price hikes amid shortages.

This Article provides a new, empirically grounded perspective on the price …

The Healthcare System And Pandemics: Where Is The Market Failure?, Sophia S. Helland, Edward R. Morrison

Faculty Scholarship

Barak D. Richman and Steven L. Schwarcz argue that healthcare providers played a central – and failing – role in stemming the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Analogizing to the financial crisis of 2008, they view our healthcare system as a collection of providers, each maximizing returns to its own stakeholders in a laissez-faire regulatory environment that ignored the essential interconnectedness of providers. Because neither hospitals nor regulators were attuned to this interconnectedness, our healthcare system was unprepared for the pandemic, resulting in a reduced standard of care. Just as Dodd-Frank and related legislation view financial institutions as part of …

How Constitutional Theory Matters, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

It is impossible to understand the present moment in progressive constitutionalism without engaging a stock narrative given iconic articulation more than a decade ago by originalist scholar Randy Barnett. According to this narrative, conservatives in the 1980s, prodded by Edwin Meese III's Justice Department, rallied around originalism, and particularly "original intentions" originalism, as a politically congenial and intellectually satisfying approach to constitutional interpretation. They were defeated in the courts of academic and political opinion due in part to a series of unanswerable criticisms from liberal legal scholars such as Paul Brest and H. Jefferson Powell, and in part to the …

Hoffman V. Red Owl Stores And The Myth Of Precontractual Reliance, Robert E. Scott

Faculty Scholarship

For decades there has been substantial uncertainty regarding when the law will impose precontractual liability. The confusion is partly attributable to the unfortunate case of Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores and to the unusual degree of scholarly attention that it has attracted. A careful examination of the record of the Hoffman case reveals facts that are much different from conventional understanding. The disagreement between Joseph Hoffman and Red Owl Stores resulted from a fundamental misunderstanding between the parties regarding the terms of Hoffnan's capital contribution to the franchise. The misunderstanding was largely a product of Hoffnan's penchant for moving assets …

Desperately Seeking Consideration: The Unfortunate Impact Of U.C.C. Section 2-306 On Contract Interpretation, Victor P. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

In Section 2-306, the Uniform Commercial Code's drafters intended to assure that two classes of agreements would be enforceable, even though they might appear on their face to be illusory. Variable quantity (output and requirements) contracts were buttressed by reading in a good faith standard (§ 2-306(1)) and exclusive dealing contracts were made enforceable by reading in a best efforts standard (§ 2-306(2)). This was a big mistake. In this paper I show how these two fixes create problems for interpreting contracts. I use two well-known cases, Feld v. Henry S. Levy & Sons, Inc. and Wood v. Lucy, …

Wrtl And Randall: The Roberts Court And The Unsettling Of Campaign Finance Law, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

The first term of the Roberts Court was a potentially pivotal moment in campaign finance law. The Court both broke its pattern of deference to federal and state regulations that had marked the last half-dozen years and began to take a more critical approach to campaign finance restrictions. In Randall v. Sorrell, the Court struck down a Vermont law that sought to limit expenditures and to lower contributions in state and local elections. The expenditure restriction decision was no surprise, as it essentially reaffirmed the Court's rejection of expenditure limits in Buckley v. Valeo three decades ago. But the …

Opting For Real Death Penalty Reform, James S. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

The capital punishment system in the United States is broken. Studies reveal growing delays nationwide between death sentences and executions and inexcusably high rates of reversals and retrials of capital verdicts. The current system persistently malfuinctions because it rewards trial actors, such as police, prosecutors, and trial judges, for imposing death sentences, but it does not force them either to avoid making mistakes or to bear the cost of mistakes that are made during the process. Nor is there any adversarial discipline imposed at the trial level because capital defendants usually receive appointed counsel who either do not have experience …

Cooperating Clients, Daniel Richman

Faculty Scholarship

Indicted on serious narcotics charges, Jose Lopez retained Barry Tarlow to “vigorously defend and try the case.” Tarlow was up to the task but warned Lopez that it was “his general policy not to represent clients in negotiations with the government concerning cooperation,” and that he did not plan to make any exception for Lopez. As Tarlow later explained, he found such negotiations “personally[,] morally and ethically offensive.” This arrangement suited Lopez just fine, until he wavered in his resolution. Encouraged by a co-defendant, worried about his children, and hoping to obtain an early release from prison …

Facing The Challenge: A Lawyer's Response To Anti-Gay Initiatives, Suzanne B. Goldberg

Faculty Scholarship

We are living in an extraordinary period of gay and lesbian history. As lesbian and gay civil rights gain increasing recognition throughout the country – through small but growing numbers of laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, court rulings protecting lesbian and gay parents' custody of their children, and a historically unprecedented level of positive media coverage – our struggles also have escalated enormously. Not only must we litigate and negotiate for equal opportunity in employment, housing, and parenting rights as always, but also we face a nationally organized and terrifically well-funded assault on our fundamental rights as citizens.

This nationwide …

Rethinking Joint Custody, Elizabeth S. Scott, Andre Derdeyn

Faculty Scholarship

A small revolution has begun in child custody law, and as yet its dimensions and ultimate direction are uncertain. Joint custody, the sharing of legal authority by divorced or separated parents over their children, is gaining acceptance as the best arrangement for most children when their parents divorce. The legal system is embracing this arrangement with remarkable enthusiasm, although until recently it was viewed as being of questionable legality and antithetical to the best interest of the child. Today, thirty states have joint custody laws, most of which have been enacted since 1980. A growing number of the more recent …