Law Commons^™

Mdl V. Trump: The Puzzle Of Public Law In Multidistrict Litigation, Andrew D. Bradt, Zachary D. Clopton

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Litigation against the Trump Administration has proliferated rapidly since the inauguration. As cases challenging executive actions, such as the “travel ban,” multiply in federal courts around the country, an important procedural question has so far not been considered — Should these sets of cases be consolidated in a single court under the Multidistrict Litigation Act? Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, has become one of the most prominent parts of federal litigation and offers substantial benefits by coordinating litigation pending in geographically dispersed federal courts. Arguably, those benefits would also accrue if “public law” cases were given MDL treatment. There also are …

Putting Distribution First, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

It is common for normative legal theorists, economists and other policy analysts to conduct and communicate their work mainly in maximizing terms. They take the maximization of welfare, for example, or of wealth or utility, to be primary objectives of legislation and public policy. Few if any of these theorists seem to notice, however, that any time we speak explicitly of maximizing one thing, we speak implicitly of distributing other things and of equalizing yet other things. Fewer still seem to recognize that we effectively define ourselves by reference to that which we distribute and equalize. For it is in …

“Private” Means To “Public” Ends: Governments As Market Actors, Robert C. Hockett, Saule T. Omarova

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Many people recognize that governments can play salutary roles in relation to markets by (a) “overseeing” market behavior from “above,” or (b) supplying foundational “rules of the game” from “below.” It is probably no accident that these widely recognized roles also sit comfortably with traditional conceptions of government and market, pursuant to which people tend categorically to distinguish between “public” and “private” spheres of activity.

There is a third form of government action that receives less attention than forms (a) and (b), however, possibly owing in part to its straddling the traditional public/private divide. We call it the “government as …

Bretton Woods 1.0: A Constructive Retrieval For Sustainable Finance, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Global trade imbalance and domestic financial fragility are intimately related. When a nation runs persistently massive current account deficits to maintain global liquidity as has the United States now for decades, its central bank effectively relinquishes exchange rate flexibility to become a de facto central bank to the world. That in turn prevents the bank from playing its essential credit-modulatory role at home, at least absent strict capital controls that are difficult to administer and have long been taboo. And this can in turn render credit-fueled asset price bubbles and busts all but impossible to prevent, irrespective of the nation's …

Probabilities In Probable Cause And Beyond: Statistical Versus Concrete Harms, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Deconstructing Nondelegation, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Essay (part of the panel on "The Administrative State and the Constitution" at the 2009 Federalist Society Student Symposium) suggests that the persistence of debates over delegation to agencies cannot persuasively be explained as a determination finally to get constitutional law “right,” for nondelegation doctrine—at least as traditionally stated—does not rest on a particularly sound legal foundation. Rather, these debates continue because nondelegation provides a vehicle for pursuing a number of different concerns about the modern regulatory state. Whether or not one shares these concerns, they are not trivial, and we should voice and engage them directly rather than …

Hope In The Law, Annelise Riles

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Why Paretians Can’T Prescribe: Preferences, Principles, And Imperatives In Law And Policy, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent years have witnessed two linked revivals in the legal academy. The first is renewed interest in articulating a normative “master principle” by which legal rules might be evaluated. The second is renewed interest in the prospect that a variant of Benthamite “utility” might serve as the requisite touchstone. One influential such variant now in circulation is what the Article calls “Paretian welfarism.”

This Article rejects Paretian welfarism and advocates an alternative it calls “fair welfare.” It does so because Paretian welfarism is inconsistent with ethical, social, and legal prescription, while fair welfare is what we have been groping for …

Re-Reading Weber In Law And Development: A Critical Intellectual History Of "Good Governance" Reform, Chantal Thomas

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The "Weberianism" of the modern age derives from the influence of three theoretical concepts in Weber's work. First, Weber described the development of "logically formal rationality" in governance as central to the rise of Western capitalist democracy. Second, Weber posited that Protestant religious ethics had helped to promote certain economic behaviors associated with contemporary capitalism. Third, Weber identified the rise of bureaucratic governance, as the primary means of realizing logically formal rationality, as distinctly modern.

This essay examines the influence of these basic insights on discourse on legal reform in developing countries. The prioritization of legal and institutional reforms to …

Insource The Shareholding Of Outsourced Employees: A Global Stock Ownership Plan, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

With the American economy stalled and another federal election campaign season well underway, the “outsourcing” of American jobs is again on the public agenda. Latest figures indicate not only that claims for joblessness benefits are up, but also that the rate of American job-exportation has more than doubled since the last electoral cycle. This year’s political candidates have been quick to take note. In consequence, more than at any time since the early 1990s, continued American participation in the World Trade Organization, in the North American Free Trade Agreement, and in the processes of global economic integration more generally appear …

Transdisciplinary Conflict Of Laws Foreword: Cavers's Double Legacy, Karen Knop, Ralf Michaels, Annelise Riles

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

.

Lawyers As Quasi-Public Actors, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This paper was written for a panel on access to justice at the 100th anniversary conference of the Law Society of Alberta, Canada. In it I argue that the debate over access to justice, which in the United States generally means pro bono representation provided by individual lawyers, cannot be divorced from broader theoretical debates about the lawyer's role. My claim is that lawyers are quasi-public actors, in the sense that they have some responsibility to aim directly at justice in their representation of clients, and cannot rely only on indirect strategies to ensure that justice is served. The argument …

The Impossibility Of A Prescriptive Paretian, Robert C. Hockett

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Most normatively oriented economists appear to be “welfarist” and Paretian to one degree or another: They deem responsiveness to individual preferences, and satisfaction of one or more of the Pareto criteria, to be a desirable attribute of any social welfare function. I show that no strictly “welfarist” or Paretian social welfare function can be normatively prescriptive. Economists who prescribe must embrace at least one value apart from or additional to “welfarism” and Paretianism, and in fact will do best to dispense with Pareto entirely.

Lawyers, Citizens, And The Internal Point Of View, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Imagine two citizens, one of whom obeys the law only in order to avoid being sanctioned for noncompliance, the other of whom looks to the law for guidance, and regards legal directives as legitimate reasons for action in themselves. These two hypothetical citizens represent Oliver Wendell Holmes' metaphorical bad man and H.L.A. Hart's puzzled man, respectively. Both citizens take the law into account in their practical reasoning, but they are concerned with very different kinds of reasons created by law. Hart argues that the bad citizen's point of view is inadequate to capture the law's distinctive normativity. In response, some …

Regulatory Taxings, Eduardo M. Peñalver

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The tension between the Supreme Court's expansive reading of the Takings Clause and the state's virtually limitless power to tax has been repeatedly noted, but has received little systematic exploration. Although some scholars, most notably Richard Epstein, have used the tension between takings law and taxes to argue against the legitimacy of taxation as it is presently practiced, such an approach has failed to gain a significant following. Instead, the broad legal consensus is that legislatures effectively have unlimited authority to impose tax burdens. Nevertheless, this Article demonstrates that every attempt to formulate a "Reconciling Theory," a theory that would …

Cognitive Psychology And Optimal Government Design, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Playing With Fire, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Blackletter Statement Of Federal Administrative Law: Standing, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Getting Beyond Cynicism: New Theories Of The Regulatory State. Foreword: Post-Public Choice?, Cynthia R. Farina, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Faith, Hope, And Rationality Or Public Choice And The Perils Of Occam's Razor, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Regulatory Improvement Legislation: Risk Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, And Judicial Review, Fred Anderson, Mary Ann Chirba-Martin, E. Donald Elliott, Cynthia R. Farina, Ernest Gellhorn, John D. Graham, C. Boyden Gray, Jeffrey Holmstead, Ronald M. Levin, Lars Noah, Katherine Rhyne, Jonathan Baert Weiner

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

As the number, cost, and complexity of federal regulations have grown over the past twenty years, there has been growing interest in the use of analytic tools such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to improve the regulatory process. The application of these tools to public health, safety, and environmental problems has become commonplace in the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literatures. Recent studies prepared by Resources for the Future, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis have demonstrated how formal analyses can and often do help government agencies achieve more protection against hazards …

Preliminary Thoughts On The Virtues Of Passive Dialogue, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The judicial, legislative, and executive branches interact in many ways. These interactions fuel a constitutional dialogue that serves as a backdrop to myriad governmental activities, both large and small. The judiciary's participation is necessary, desirable, and, as a practical matter, inevitable. In my article I analyze two competing models that bear on the normative question: What form should the judiciary's participation take?

Debates over the judiciary's appropriate role in the public constitutional dialogue have captured scholarly attention for decades. Recent attention has focused on a growing distinction between the active and passive models of judicial participation. My article approaches this …

Epstein's Property, Emily Sherwin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In an era of skepticism about common law traditions and sensitivity to claims of distributive injustice, Richard Epstein has been an unflinching defender of private property rights. He has insisted that property rights are intelligible, and reminded us of their importance to social and economic welfare. In this paper, I shall offer what I believe is a friendly interpretation of Epstein's writings on property, and then pose some internal questions about the approach he has outlined. I begin with a quick summary of his description of property rights in an ideal legal regime.

On Misusing “Revolution” And “Reform”: Procedural Due Process And The New Welfare Act, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

After a long dry spell, the debate over procedural due process flows again. The Supreme Court has announced the first major doctrinal revision in years; Congress has gutted the regulatory program that underlay Goldberg v. Kelly; and Richard Pierce has published an essay in the Columbia Law Review prophesying a radical de-evolution of due process doctrine that will bring constitutional law into line with the profound political and social revolution evidenced by welfare “reform.” My essay takes Professor Pierce's recent work as a springboard for reengaging the debate about the direction of procedural due process. I begin by recapitulating …

Commentary On Presentations Of Prof. Roberta S. Karmel & Prof. James A. Fanto, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The Consent Of The Governed: Against Simple Rules For A Complex World, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Professor Farina argues that recent proponents of enhanced presidential power overstate the ability of the President to legitimize the regulatory state. It accuses pro-presidentialists of premising their claims on a conception of the "will of the people" that is neither an accurate description of how citizens actually participate in modern government nor an authentic constitutional understanding of how citizens would consent to public policy decisions. The paper concludes by insisting that no single mode of democratic legitimization can "save" the regulatory enterprise; rather, administrative law must look to a plurality of institutions and practices that contribute to an ongoing process …

The "Chief Executive" And The Quiet Constitutional Revolution, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Ten Years Of Takings, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No area of property law has been more controversial in the past decade than takings. No aspect of constitutional law more sharply poses the dilemma about the legitimate powers of the regulatory state than the just compensation question. No question concerning constitutional property is more intractable than what sorts of government regulatory actions constitute uncompensated "takings" of private property.

Limitations of space, not to mention my own ambivalence about many of the issues, prevent me from developing a complete normative theory of the proper scope of the Takings Clause. My aim here is vastly more modest: to outline the basic …

Judicial Review Of Petitions, Cynthia R. Farina

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Senate bill 343, at least, is careful to say that upon denial of a petition, the denial should be deemed "agency action" for purposes of judicial review. Only at one point in the legislation does the statute speak explicitly to the standard, and that's with respect to the petition for putting an existing major rule on the schedule for analysis. The bill says that the agency's action shall be overturned by the court only on the determination that the action was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, which is what we assumed the standard would have been for …

"Takings" Jurisprudence In The U.S. Supreme Court: The Past 10 Years, Gregory S. Alexander

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No area of American property law has been more controversial in recent years than the government regulation of uses of private property. No aspect of American constitutional law more sharply poses the dilemma about the legitimate powers of the regulatory state than the requirement that the government pay compensation for takings of property. The purpose of this essay is to acquaint the non-American legal scholar who is unfamiliar with the recent developments in the United States Supreme Court “takings” jurisprudence. The essay does not presuppose any background knowledge about either American constitutional or property law. Instead it attempts to familiarize …