Rohan Grey and Amanda Parsons on the law and political economy of cryptocurrency, Sandeep Vaheesan on antitrust reform as an instrument for democratizing economic life, Zohra Ahmed and Madiha Tahir on the Trump administration’s escalation against Venezuela, and Quinn Slobodian on the dim prospects of centrist post-neoliberalism. Plus, a “freedom from want” writing award, the birth of a new NYC policy shop, a look at how money does and doesn’t influence elections, a tutorial on the Netflix-Warner Bros Merger, and a new paper on the jurisprudential question of our times: how should you think about a Supreme Court that doesn’t care what you think?
In the recent exchange between the Marxists and the antitrusters, much of the disagreement has turned on different understandings of the project of antitrust reform. What is its animating goal? Is antitrust a substitute or complement to other forms of regulation? And how does antitrust relate to broader political movements? Identifying rival stances that one might take on these questions can help clarify this debate, while also showing how antitrust law can serve as an instrument for democratizing economic life.
A call to join the ranks of the Association for Law and Political Economy, an interview with Bench Ansfield about the business of arson, and a new entry by Amna Akbar in our symposium on Free Gifts. Plus, Andrew Elrod and Marshall Steinbaum lay out a vision for rebuilding higher ed, Katie Wells and Lindsay Owens examine algorithmic pricing at instacart, Sam Moyn discusses the radical centrism of the legal academy, Genevieve Lakier, Mark Tushnet, and Mike Seidman debate whether we need the courts to protect free speech, and Ben Tarnoff extols the possibilities for digital sewer socialism.
In Free Gifts, Alyssa Battistoni explores capitalism’s persistent failure to value the natural world. Yet the lesson of this exploration is much broader: that capitalism imposes fundamental limits on our collective freedom.
In today’s polarized political discourse, it is easy to forget that the Bible’s economic values align better with LPE’s market critiques than with the neoliberal right’s twentieth-century synthesis. And it would be a mistake to surrender these resources to the post-liberal right.
As public-private partnerships become central to modern governance, FOIA’s Exemption 4 has evolved into a powerful tool for corporate secrecy. After Argus Leader, government agencies and private firms can thwart transparency through confidentiality pacts, shielding significant public spending and regulatory decision-making from democratic oversight.
Law and political economy scholarship, immersed in a particular history of Northern law and capitalism, has tended to focus on US law and policy, with occasional excursions into Europe. But in a world where imperialist ideas and technologies tend to circle back to the metropole, and where the periphery appears to be the future of the center, the Global South has much to teach LPE about law, capitalism, and development.
While legal clinics have long been vulnerable to pressure from outside forces, recent attacks by the federal government represent an alarming new level of interference. Protecting clinical work now requires not only legal and institutional defenses, but collective preparation and solidarity across the profession.
Antitrust may promise to tame corporate power, but it leaves untouched the deeper logic of capitalism that compels production for profit’s sake. In this sense, antitrust is not voluntarist enough, choosing to fight capital with one hand tied behind its back. At the same time, however, antitrust places too much faith in law as a source of normative authority and in an administrative state whose legitimacy is evaporating before our eyes.
Even as the Trump administration seeks to dismantle DEI in the name of “merit,” the law it distorts still harbors possibilities for resistance. Title VII prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination, and workers purged for their past DEI efforts should consider pursuing retaliation claims against their employers. Such lawsuits would raise the costs of anticipatory capitulation, while also providing some measure of relief to workers already harmed.
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.
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.
Genevieve Lakier on weaponizing antidiscrimination law, Sanjukta Paul on laws and markets, and Ally Coll and Justin Gravlee on NIH v. APHA. Plus, an incredible online conference on Capitalism and Socialism (happening today!), a cool new book by Jamila Michener and Mallory E. SoRelle, and new pieces by Erik Baker, Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, and Jamelle Bouie.
