Large digital platforms often are not winner-take-all markets. As a result, antitrust has a role but breakup is rarely the right solution. Better options include incentivizing competition within the platform or forcing interoperability or information sharing. Current merger policy, however, is poorly designed to address platform acquisitions of small firms.
This Review examines the significance of Henry Louis Gates, Jr.’s new book, Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow, for the study of racism in our nation’s legal system and for the regulation of race in the legal profession.
Even as Congress has gradually improved the military justice system, its members have unjustly interfered with individual cases. This Note surveys the complex history of Congress’s involvement with military justice and proposes reforms to preserve productive oversight and reduce destructive interference.
In southeastern Louisiana, plantations still line the Mississippi River, surrounded by Black communities who experience these estates as sites of racialized harm. This Note explores the use of eminent domain to achieve land-based reparations for these descendants and draws lessons for reparations at other sites of historical and continued subjugation.
This ten-year retrospective on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) traces the law’s ambivalent track record to its merely partial adoption of a cooperative-federalist framework. Drawing from enforcement data, state settlement documents, and other cooperative-federalist statutes, this Note suggests policy interventions tailored to improve enforcement.
This Collection taps into ongoing legal discussions related to vaccine development, approval, and administration processes during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The first Essay of the series (Vaccination Equity by Design) proposes a federal regulatory framework for countering the inverse equity effects of initial vaccine rollout.
In this Collection, the 2020-21 Yale Law Journal Public-Interest Fellows draw on their work experiences. The first Essay in this Collection argues that Congress can and should replace the existing state-law defamation regime with a federal defamation law.
Americans find themselves once again grappling with the reality and legacy of racial subordination and structural inequality. Law is central to both maintaining and dismantling structural subordination based upon race, class, and other marginalized identities. This collection, in conjunction with other law reviews, grapples with some of these realities.
Federal law currently provides for direct Supreme Court review of criminal convictions from almost all American jurisdictions, but not of most court-martial convictions. For them, an Article I court can veto access to the Supreme Court. This Essay argues for elimination of that veto.
The Supreme Court invalidated two major executive-branch initiatives in the past two years, pointing in each case to concerns about an evasion of political accountability. This Feature surfaces the “accountability-forcing” brand of arbitrariness review at work in these cases, unpacks its significance, and mounts a qualified defense of its merits.
Securities regulation is a poor host for insider trading doctrine. This Note advances an alternative: the law of federal criminal fraud. It argues that a standalone model of Title 18 insider trading can resolve stubborn doctrinal puzzles, stamp out judge-made securities crimes, and reanchor the offense to its conceptual foundations.
Over 120 years after YLJ published its first piece on the Insular Cases, these cases appeared again before the Supreme Court in Aurelius. This collection evaluates these cases’ continuing influence, and is dedicated to the memory of Judge Juan R. Torruella, a forceful scholar of these cases’ troubled legacy.
This Article proposes an innovative approach to addressing political inequality: using law to facilitate organizing by the poor and working class – as workers, tenants, debtors, and welfare beneficiaries. The Article offers a new direction for the literature on political inequality and critical lessons for government officials, organizers, and advocates.
This Note seeks to identify the causes of “public charge” confusion. Mapping the exclusion’s history reveals how Congress and the courts have left the administrative state a near-impossible task: reconciling public charge with evolving commitments to public welfare. Drawing on archived Clinton-era negotiations, I offer a path forward.