We Were Wrong All Along: Deregulation by Disavowal
The SEC’s recent effort to rescind a longstanding shareholder-proposal rule reveals a novel strategy for entrenching deregulatory policy: disclaiming the authority to regulate in the first place.
The SEC’s recent effort to rescind a longstanding shareholder-proposal rule reveals a novel strategy for entrenching deregulatory policy: disclaiming the authority to regulate in the first place.
In Katharina Pistor’s penetrating diagnosis, the law that constitutes capitalism spreads like a virus, and the only plausible cure is a new code of just private law. If this is indeed the remedy, we must devise a treatment regimen, figure out how to administer it, and deal with any harmful side-effects.
What would a meaningful right to stay require? And how can private law help disadvantaged people and families build lasting, rooted communities? Marissa Jackson Sow, Allison Tait, Carla Spivack, Alina Ball, Juan Carlos Ibarra, and Carliss Chatman weigh in.
To design the right program for capitalism’s legal transformation, we must begin with the right theory of capitalism.
As cities across the country fight to take back control of their utilities, Milwaukee’s Sewer Socialists demonstrate what cities can achieve through local ownership, and why state regulation often serves private interests over the public good.
If capitalism is a legal regime above all else, then legal reform is not only necessary but sufficient in order to achieve democratic self-governance, ecological sustainability, and equality. As the collapse of the WTO and the rise of China suggest, however, law alone does not decide who holds economic power.
When new constitutional orders came about in the 18th and 19th centuries, they left intact the private legal order that they inherited from feudalism, entrenching property rights and contracts as bulwarks against economic democracy. Reforming this system will require placing private law on a normative foundation that is compatible with democratic self-ordering.
Two new entries in our LPE vs. Law and Economies series: James Tierney considers what LPE could want from a method, and Darren Bush, Mark Glick, and Gabriel Lozada search far and wide for “contemporary” law and economics. Plus, an upcoming LPE Night School event on the NYC housing crisis, Sam Levine on governing AI for consumers and workers, Ben Kaufman on the scourge of the lower courts, Lenore Palladino on the potential of public credit funds, and Joel Michaels on how to restore Congress’s fiscal powers.
Administrative law is often described as “transsubstantive”: in understanding, evaluating, and articulating the rules governing federal agency action across public health, environmental regulation, national security, and sundry other domains, law schools and legal scholarship treat administration as a single enterprise. What would it take to move beyond transsubstantivity and make administrative law more attentive to context? A recent project on drug scheduling offers some insights.
Where do profits come from? And how does law legitimate capitalism? To make progress on these questions, we must dig deeper into the nature of capital and the idea of the legal form.
What the history of multilevel marketing can teach us about our political moment.
Before the Blog goes on its annual August hiatus, we count down the ten most read posts of 2026 so far, say a fond farewell to our departing student editors, and welcome three new additions to the team.
As the country marks 250 years, the left faces two imperatives at once: confronting a constitutional order warped by judicial supremacy, and reorienting American foreign policy away from endless war.
On this blog and elsewhere, Congress has recently been cast as a cure for our decrepit democracy. This push for legislative primacy is a mistake: it valorizes a deeply undemocratic institution, relies on a selective reading of the past, and distracts us from vital debates about the policies we should be pursuing and persuading others to support.
Is LPE scholarship anti-empirical? Has contemporary law and economics become a neutral social science? Don’t believe everything you hear in Chicago.