In the current moment, it is not a crisis of capitalism that challenges democracy, but its triumph. For this reason, our political-economic situation is quite different from that of Weimar Germany, whatever continuities and similarities may exist.
While some have cast the U.S. government’s $8.9 billion equity stake in Intel as the first step on the road to socialism, upon closer examination it looks more like a distinctive form of American state capitalism: one that entrenches corporate power while foreclosing more democratic and effective alternatives.
As fascist tendencies intensify across the United States, social movements continue to organize against the forces of state repression. Legal scholars must stand with these movements, grounding our analysis in struggle and supporting those fighting on the frontlines with our relative social power and institutional resources.
Some on the left dismiss anti-monopolism as a distraction from the core conflict between labor and capital. But this view misunderstands both history and strategy: antitrust has long been a tool for democratizing economic power, and it remains essential for resisting attempts to control economic production wherever and whenever it occurs.
Law and Economics scholars argue that if income redistribution is to happen at all, it should occur exclusively through the tax system, rather than through supposedly less efficient methods, such as the minimum wage, collective bargaining, or housing regulation. Yet even by their own lights, these arguments fail: in many cases, predistributive policies are actually more efficient than the tax and transfer system. More fundamentally, to address economic inequality, we must move beyond narrow issues of distribution and transform the mode of production itself.
In the ruins of the administrative state after Trump, many on the left see an opportunity to design a New Deal-type reconstruction agenda. But building state capacity requires a government that is seen as legitimate, and it is precisely the erosion of legitimacy in the eyes of the public that has enabled Trump to carry out his deconstructive agenda.
Recent authoritarian attacks on higher education mark a significant shift from the neoliberal era, which celebrated institutional independence from the state, the role of education in boosting worker productivity, and the value of research in driving profitable innovation. However, there are key continuities between the two periods. The neoliberal era laid the groundwork for today’s authoritarian turn by making public institutions increasingly reliant on federal funding, dismantling independent state planning boards, and deepening inequality within the higher education system.
In the United States and elsewhere, the forces of monopoly, antitrust, and corporate power tend to follow a certain historical pattern, with long-term swings between strong anti-monopoly policies and pro-business policies. To anticipate the future of anti-monopoly politics, we need to understand the dynamic forces that drive these recurring large-scale shifts between monopoly and competition.
Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, President Trump and his allies have repeatedly threatened to use conspiracy laws against liberal groups, protesters, and political opponents. These threats reflect a troubling trend: prosecutors are exploiting the vague and expansive nature of conspiracy charges to attack the very relationships and forms of coordination that make social movements possible.
The Supreme Court’s NIH v. APHA decision creates a harmful “two-track” litigation process, forcing plaintiffs to file duplicative lawsuits in different courts to obtain relief. Echoing the Pennhurst ruling of 50 years ago, the Court’s procedural maneuvering threatens to obstruct justice for those challenging discriminatory government actions.
Incarcerated workers are deeply embedded in the U.S. economy, yet they are excluded from basic labor protections and organizing rights. Traditional labor unions can and should bring these workers into the fold by organizing across prison walls and redefining the boundaries of worker solidarity.
Recent amendments to Delaware’s corporate code have tilted the playing field toward powerful tech CEOs and private equity representatives. Beneath these reforms lies a deeper political shift — the rise of populist corporate governance that threatens both shareholder rights and the rule of law.
In a stunning betrayal of 30 million workers, the Federal Trade Commission has abandoned its nationwide ban on non-compete agreements. Fortunately, states are filling the void with remarkable creativity — drawing on both new legislation and existing competition and consumer laws to enhance worker mobility.
As legal protections for labor organizing face existential threats, the American labor movement must confront a deeper challenge: the erosion of social norms that once condemned union-busting as morally wrong.
Despite a recent surge in campus organizing, tenured faculty at private universities haven’t unionized. Why is this? The conventional answer is that the Supreme Court said they can’t. Fortunately, the conventional answer is wrong.
