What if the price you see isn’t the price, but your price? As personalized pricing and consumer profiling spread, hidden patterns of advantage and disadvantage threaten to undermine the shared conditions that make collective action possible.
For over a century, fixed prices have made markets more transparent. Surveillance pricing threatens to reverse that progress by allowing corporations to secretly tailor prices using personal data. While states are beginning to respond to these practices, their efforts face growing First Amendment headwinds.
By targeting the addictive design features of social media platforms, K.G.M. v. Meta marks a breakthrough in product liability law. Yet the case also reveals a neglected class dimension: the harms of addictive platform design fall most heavily on those with the fewest alternatives. In addition to regulating these harmful products, we must build a world in which children do not so desperately need them.
Antitrust defendants increasingly prevail not by disproving competitive harm, but by dragging plaintiffs into costly battles over market definition. As courts have broadened the rule of reason and complicated the evidentiary standards for proving market power, these threshold fights have become a structural barrier to antitrust enforcement.
How might we recover a pro-labor vision of the Constitution, and what would such a vision look like today? Kate Andrias, Willy Forbath, Jennifer Abruzzo, Keith R. Bolek, Andrea Hoeschen, Darin Dalmat, and Alvin Velazquez share their perspectives.
Federal courts have overwhelmingly rejected the Trump Administration’s radical expansion of mandatory detention. Despite this, ICE continues to arrest and detain tens of thousands of people each month, effectively nullifying judicial oversight through sheer scale.
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.
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.
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?
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.
While the Administrative Procedure Act could constrain the worst abuses of the Trump administration’s immigration regime, the Supreme Court has shown little appetite for such administrative review.
By misstating the holding of SFFA in a recent dear colleague letter, the Department of Education has created a gap between what the law requires and the agency’s interpretation of the law. This gap, in addition to inviting anticipatory overcompliance, risks giving rise to inconsistent policies at different colleges and universities.
Recent Supreme Court decisions threaten to undermine administrative efforts to achieve housing justice, including the mandate to affirmatively further fair housing and a loan program that provides affordable rural rental housing to disadvantaged families.
Four Supreme Court decisions concerning the power of the administrative state have left agencies increasingly vulnerable to attack. Each decision is significant on its own, but together they underscore the precarious position of agency action today.
The Trump Administration’s open rejection of due process and equal protection echoes some of the darkest aspects of antebellum America, when black Americans were frequently kidnapped and disappeared into the South without recourse. Yet this history also shows that direct legal representation can play a powerful role in mobilizing public opposition to unjust policies and proceedings.
