The article proposes a unique antitrust remedy of negative ownership positions in remaining rivals as an alternative to divestiture in mergers. This remedy aims to restore competition levels by counteracting anticompetitive effects of mergers through various implementations like compensation based on relative performance and derivative contracts. The text explores the concept of negative ownership in antitrust enforcement, discussing its benefits in maintaining pre-merger competitive incentives and potentially allowing procompetitive transactions. It also delves into scenarios of asymmetry among firms, impact on innovation, and a detailed model of the JetBlue/Spirit merger to illustrate how negative ownership can influence pricing decisions, offering a versatile tool for antitrust enforcement.

Police reform has long been a topic of heated debate in the United States. But it assumed new urgency and political significance during the past decade, as national news has carried story after story about the killing of unarmed Black men and women at the hands of law enforcement officials. In 2015, not long after the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., the American Law Institute (ALI) launched its Principles of the Law, Policing project to address pressing questions about law enforcement failures and to provide a written framework for building just and rational policing laws, policies, and practices — a framework that police agencies and police reform advocates alike might agree on.

The article provides a detailed account of the marriage equality debates in California from 2004 to 2008, highlighting key events such as the Winter of Love in 2004 and the Marriage Cases of 2005-08. It discusses legal battles, including the California Supreme Court's ruling that invalidated the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. Various legal arguments were presented, with Attorney General Lockyer and Proposition 22 defenders taking different approaches. The article also mentions the launch of ProtectMarriage.com in 2005 to support a constitutional Super-DOMA ballot initiative and the successful campaign for Proposition 8 in 2008, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Client-centered criminal defense attorneys endeavor to maximize their client's autonomy, using their expertise to counsel their client through the criminal process. Indeed, the criminal system relies on defense counsel to ensure fairness and, in turn, help legitimize the system. What does it mean for the system if the client-centered lawyer can't fulfill their goals?. This Article argues that, because today's criminal system uses a treatment paradigm reliant on mandated treatment for defendants with mental disabilities, defense attorneys must then confront a lawyering quandary. It does so by exploring the challenges client-centered lawyers face in representing clients with mental health conditions categorized as personality "disorders," who are likely to struggle completing mandated treatment programs, in turn complicating their path for lowering imprisonment exposure and accessing care. Through a discussion of the obstacles lawyers face on behalf of clients with personality conditions, this Article illuminates deeper systemic failures in how the criminal system handles mental health issues.

An introduction to the journal is presented which discusses various reports within the issue about regulatory environment of banks, including how the Federal Home Loan Bank system works, public banking, and deposit insurance.

The article focuses on Jack M. Balkin's exploration of constitutional fidelity through the lens of Rabbi Akiva's story and its implications for interpreting legal texts. Topics include Jonathan Gienapp's critique of conservative originalism, the inherent challenges of adapting historical legal frameworks to modern contexts, and the balance between maintaining fidelity and embracing creativity in constitutional interpretation.

Federal court records have been available online for nearly a quarter century, yet they remain frustratingly inaccessible to the public. This is due to two primary barriers: (1) the federal government’s prohibitively high fees to access the records at scale and (2) the unwieldy state of the records themselves, which are mostly text documents scattered across numerous systems. Official datasets produced by the judiciary, as well as third-party data collection efforts, are incomplete, inaccurate, and similarly inaccessible to the public. The result is a de facto data blackout that leaves an entire branch of the federal government shielded from empirical scrutiny. In this Essay, we introduce the SCALES project: a new data-gathering and data-organizing initiative to right this wrong. SCALES is an online platform that we built to assemble federal court records, systematically organize them and extract key information, and—most importantly—make them freely available to the public. The database currently covers all federal cases initiated in 2016 and 2017, and we intend to expand this coverage to all years. This Essay explains the shortcomings of existing systems (such as the federal government’s PACER platform), how we built SCALES to overcome these inadequacies, and how anyone can use SCALES to empirically analyze the operations of the federal courts. We offer a series of exploratory findings to showcase the depth and breadth of the SCALES platform. Our goal is for SCALES to serve as a public resource where practitioners, policymakers, and scholars can conduct empirical legal research and improve the operations of the federal courts. For more information, visit www.scales-okn.org.

Family law conventionally treats parenthood as binary: A child has two, and only two, parents. These two parents possess all parental rights and responsibilities, which cannot be shared with others. Their status as parents remains fixed throughout the child’s life. Today, legislatures are explicitly challenging this view. Ten jurisdictions now have multiparent statutes, i.e., laws that authorize courts to recognize more than two legal parents. Commentators tend to view this development as a radical change in the law intended to accommodate radical new family forms produced by assisted reproduction, LGBTQ family formation, and polyamory. But the accuracy of these assumptions—about the ways in which these statutes represent a break from the past and the types of families they capture—has remained unexamined. This Article is the first to do so through an empirical study. Analyzing all publicly available judicial decisions issued pursuant to multiparent statutes, we show that the families they accommodate are not novel and rare family arrangements involving planned and well-resourced LGBTQ parents, but instead more familiar and common ones, emerging out of re-partnering and caregiving by extended family members and often resulting from challenges related to poverty. We also show that extending parental rights to more than two people is a longstanding practice in family law. Drawing on a second dataset consisting of all publicly available judicial decisions applying a functional parent doctrine over four decades, we find that courts long have accommodated multiparent families. For decades, courts have authorized the sharing of parental rights and responsibilities across more than two individuals, often recognizing people who come into children’s lives long after their birth. Our empirical study of multiparent recognition challenges conventional assumptions about the life and law of parenthood itself. Families commonly construct parent-child relationships in ways that are nonbinary—sharing parental rights with more than one other person and altering a child’s parental unit over time. For their part, courts too have resisted a view of parenthood as binary. They have recognized that many children have more than two parents; that parental rights and responsibilities can be unbundled and shared; and that a child’s parents may change over time. Our empirical account also suggests that many of the concerns raised about multiparent recognition are inapposite or overstated. Imagining a planned multiparent amily with three involved parents, commentators worry that laws allowing multiparent recognition will produce bitter custody litigation, complicated tri-custody orders, and ongoing conflict with three parents sharing legal rights and responsibilities. Yet, across both datasets, the children rarely have three parents assuming parental responsibilities. Legal recognition of more than two parents typically promotes security and stability for children, not by protecting relationships with multiple involved parents, but instead—and counterintuitively—by protecting children’s primary parental relationship. Accordingly, our study leads us to be less concerned with too much multiparent recognition and instead to be more concerned with too little multiparent recognition.

Originalist proponents of a tougher nondelegation doctrine confront the many broad delegations that Congress enacted in the 1790s by claiming that each fell into some exceptional category to which the original nondelegation doctrine was inapplicable or weakly applicable, one being foreign affairs. There is lively debate on whether the founding generation actually recognized an exception to nondelegation principles for foreign affairs. This Article, commissioned for a symposium on “The Statutory Foreign Affairs Presidency,” intervenes in the debate by examining the Embargo Authorization Act of 1794, which empowered the President to lay an embargo on all ships in U.S. ports (and/or other classes of ships) if “the public safety shall so require,” for the upcoming five-month congressional recess. This was a delegation of remarkable power over the U.S. economy, which at the time depended heavily on maritime transport. An examination of the Act undermines the idea that there existed a foreign-affairs exception to cover it. Originalist proponents of a tougher nondelegation doctrine claim the doctrine was meant to protect private individual rights of liberty and property, yet Americans in the late 1700s lived in an economy that was more dependent on foreign commerce than it has ever been since, in which a five-month international embargo could be disastrous for private business nationwide. In this context, an “exception” for foreign affairs would be strange, turning economic reality on its head. Furthermore, the Act itself flouted any objective or even workable distinction between the foreign and the domestic. The Act’s unqualified use of the term “embargo” authorized the President to prohibit the departure of all ships, not only those sailing to foreign ports but also to other U.S. ports in the coastwise trade, which was then the main channel of U.S. domestic commerce. And even if the President were to impose an embargo aimed mainly at international maritime trade, preventing evasion of such a restriction required regulation of the coastwise trade—regulation that contemporaries apparently understood the Act to authorize.

The Supreme Court’s recent expansion of the major questions doctrine has rocked administrative law, throwing into doubt executive agencies’ statutory authority for numerous regulations. Some Justices have suggested that they want to go further and reinvigorate the nondelegation doctrine as a constitutional limit on Congress’s authority to delegate power to the executive branch. This Article is the first to consider how these developments might put at risk the United States’ international commitments. The Article first identifies the role of congressional delegations to the executive branch with respect to the formation and implementation of ex ante congressional–executive agreements, executive agreements pursuant to treaties, sole executive agreements, and nonbinding agreements. It then explains how the Supreme Court’s recent decisions might spark challenges to the agreements themselves or to the executive’s authority to implement them. Turning from the diagnostic to the prescriptive, the Article takes the Supreme Court’s recent cases as a given (problematic though they are) and argues that delegations involving international agreements differ from purely domestically focused delegations in material ways that counsel against applying the major questions doctrine or nondelegation doctrines to them. In particular, the existence of foreign state counterparties with whom the executive must negotiate means that Congress cannot simply direct the executive branch on international agreements with the same specificity that it can in domestically focused legislation. Moreover, declaring an existing international agreement or its implementing legislation invalid based on a domestic statutory interpretation doctrine risks causing the United States to violate international law, as well as harming its reputation as a reliable agreement partner. Treating international agreement-related delegations identically to domestically focused ones would also run counter to long-standing historical gloss from the Supreme Court itself that treats foreign-relations-related issues in exceptional ways. After arguing against using the major questions and nondelegation doctrines to police delegations related to international agreements, the Article proposes steps that the courts, Congress, and the executive branch can each take to ensure that existing and future international agreements are well-grounded in constitutional and statutory law.