16178 research outputs found
Sort by
Interlocking Directorates in the United States
No full textIn corporate America, directors wield increasing influence across multiple companies, often within the same industry (“horizontal directors”), which creates tension between antitrust laws and corporate governance. Horizontal directors are well-positioned to bring industry expertise and potentially increase higher profits, benefiting shareholders but also possibly enabling potential collusion. This chapter provides an overview of the prevalence of horizontal directors, the regulatory grey space in which they exist and the connection to some recently debated issues, including that of common ownership by institutional investors. To inform this debate, this chapter provides a thorough overview of horizontal directors from corporate and antitrust perspectives employing theoretical and empirical research. This chapter concludes with a discussion of recent enforcement actions by both the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, illustrating the increased attention to the topic by both regulators and academics alike
Total Defense: The New Deal and the Invention of National Security
No full textNational security may seem like a timeless notion. States have always sought to fortify themselves, and the modern state derives its legitimacy from protecting its population. Yet national security in fact has a very particular, very American, history—and a surprising one at that.
The concept of national security originates in the 1930s, as part of a White House campaign in response to the rise of fascism. Before then, national self-defense was defined in terms of protecting sovereign territory from invasion. But President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his circle worried that the US public, comforted by two vast oceans, did not take seriously the long-term risks posed by hypermilitarization abroad. New Dealers developed the doctrine of national security, Andrew Preston argues, to supplant the old idea of self-defense: now even geographically and temporally remote threats were to be understood as harms to be combated, while ideological competitors were perilous to the “American way of life.”
Total Defense shows it was no coincidence that a liberal like Roosevelt promoted this vision. National security, no less than social security, was a New Deal promise: the state was obliged to safeguard Americans as much from the guns and warships of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as from unemployment and poverty in old age. The resulting shift in threat perception—among policymakers and ordinary citizens alike—transformed the United States, spearheading massive government expansion and placing the country on a permanent war footing.https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/justin_miller_awards_books/1002/thumbnail.jp
Money and Federalism
No full textThe United States is the only country in the world in which both federal and state governments possess independent and yet overlapping authority for bank chartering, regulation, and supervision. The roots of this unique dual banking system can be traced back to the Constitution, written almost a century before banks rose to the apex of the financial system and became the dominant source of money. Beginning with the landmark Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, this system has been a wellspring of jurisdictional conflict. Yet over time, this highly fragmented and hotly contested system has also produced strong federal oversight and a financial safety net that protects bank depositors, prevents destabilizing runs, and promotes monetary stability.
This system is now under stress. The source of this stress is a new breed of technology-driven financial institutions, licensed and regulated almost entirely at the state-level, that provide money and payments outside the perimeter of both conventional bank regulation and the financial safety net. This Article examines the rise of these new monetary institutions, the state-level regulatory frameworks that govern them, and the nature of the threats they may one day pose to monetary stability. It also examines the legal and policy cases for federal supremacy over the regulation of these new institutions and advances two potential models: one based on complete federal preemption, the other more tailored to reflect the narrow yet critical objective of promoting public confidence and trust in the U.S. monetary system
Defining the Field of Judicial Administration
No full textThis Keynote address, as part of a symposium on Theorizing the Judicial Process, aims to make a case for the field of judicial administration and to define the field more generally. Specifically, it seeks to raise the organizing questions of the field and to note the kind of work--descriptive, empirical, and theoretical--that is needed to answer them. The hope is to map out a collective research agenda for courts scholars to pursue into the future for the benefit of the academy and judiciary, both
Book Talk: Glossing the Foreign Affairs Constitution
No full textSpeaker: Prof Curtis A Bradley, Allen M. Singer Distinguished Service Professor of Law, the Law School, University of Chicago; author, Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs: Constitutional Authority in Practice (2024
Determinants of Socially Responsible AI Governance
Full text linkThe signing of the first international AI treaty by the United States, European Union, and other nations marks a pivotal step in establishing a global framework for AI governance, ensuring that AI systems respect human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. This article advances the concepts of justice, equity, and the rule of law as yardsticks of socially responsible AI—from development through deployment—to ensure that AI technologies do not exacerbate existing inequalities but actively promote fairness and inclusivity. Part I explores AI’s potential to improve access to justice for marginalized communities and small and medium-sized law firms while scrutinizing AI-related risks judges, lawyers, and the communities they serve face. Part II examines the structural biases in AI systems, focusing on how biased data and coding practices can entrench inequity and how intellectual property protections like trade secrets can limit transparency and undermine accountability in AI governance. Part III evaluates the normative impact of AI on traditional legal frameworks, offering a comparative analysis of governance models: the U.S. market-driven approach, the EU’s rights-based model, China’s command economy, and Singapore’s soft law framework. The analysis highlights how different systems balance innovation with safeguards, emphasizing that successful AI governance must integrate risk-based regulation and transparency without stifling technological advancement. Through these comparative insights, the article proposes a proactive governance framework incorporating transparency, equity audits, and tailored regulatory approaches. This forward-looking analysis offers legal scholars and policymakers a comprehensive roadmap for navigating AI’s transformative effects on justice, equity, and the rule of law