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.
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.
Antitrust law is important not only for its potential in reforming our current economic system, but also analytically, because of law’s irreducible role in structuring economic competition and coordination. Contra any picture of markets operating via quasi-automatic mechanisms, the organization and operations of any market are as much a product of contingent rules as any law of nature.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a crowning achievement of the Civil Rights Movement. Today, however, it has become one of the most powerful forces against desegregation. How did this vertigo-inducing inversion come about? And how might we prevent similar civil rights perversions in the future?
We reach into the vault and highlight some of our favorite posts on the entanglements between criminal law, political economy, and social inequality. Featuring Angela Harris, Noah Zatz, Jocelyn Simonson, Joanna Schwartz, Anthony O’Rourke, Guyora Binder, Rick Su, Zohra Ahmed, Dorothy Roberts, Judah Schept, Andrew Crespo, and Amna Akbar.
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.
How should we understand the relationship between Marxism and antitrust? To what extent do these traditions involve conflicting methods and assumptions? And, despite their differences, can we imagine a constructive give and take, where the two intellectual programs nonetheless align into a useful division of labor?
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.
