Now in its 20th year, the Cato Supreme Court Review brings together leading legal scholars to analyze key cases from the Court's most recent term, plus cases coming up. Topics in the 2020-2021 edition include public disclosure of charitable donations (Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta), the off-campus speech (Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.), union access onto agribusiness land (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid), police acting as "community caretakers" and warrantless police entries (Caniglia v. Strom), and Arizona's new voting laws (Brnovich v. DNC).
This handbook is a definitive source of path-breaking research on the economics of gambling. It is divided into sections on casinos, sports betting, horserace betting, betting strategy motivation, behaviour and decision-making in betting markets prediction markets and political betting, and lotteries and gambling machines.
This paper provides a comprehensive global, regional, and country-level update of: (i) efficient fossil fuel prices to reflect their full private and social costs; and (ii) subsidies implied by mispricing fuels. The methodology improves over previous IMF analyses through more sophisticated estimation of costs and impacts of reform. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $5.9 trillion in 2020 or about 6.8 percent of GDP, and are expected to rise to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025. Just 8 percent of the 2020 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 92 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and foregone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies). Efficient fuel pricing in 2025 would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions 36 percent below baseline levels, which is in line with keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees, while raising revenues worth 3.8 percent of global GDP and preventing 0.9 million local air pollution deaths. Accompanying spreadsheets provide detailed results for 191 countries.
If federalism is about protecting the states, why not listen to them? In the last decade, the Supreme Court has reworked significant areas of constitutional law with the professed purpose of protecting the dignity and authority of the states, while frequently disregarding the states'' views as to what federalism is all about. The Court, according to the states, is protecting federalism too much and too little. Too much, in striking down federal law where even the states recognize that a federal role is necessary to address a national problem. Too little, in inappropriately limiting state experimentation. By listening more carefully to the States, the Supreme Court could transform its federalism jurisprudence from a source of criticism and polarization to a doctrine that should win broad support from across the political spectrum. In this important book, six distinguished authors redefine federalism and reaffirm Justice Louis Brandeis's vision of states and localities as the laboratories of democracy.
This short book analyzes the Obamacare case - focusing on many points the Supreme Court was never told about - including the fact that the constitutional framers themselves had approved mandates to buy health insurance! "Anyone who cares about the Supreme Court's approach to constitutional issues - and especially about the claims of some Justices that they try to follow the Constitution's original meaning - must read Einer Elhauge's devastating analysis of what all nine Justices, and the hundreds of advocates whose briefs and arguments they studied, simply failed to take into account when the Supreme Court decided the Health Care Case of 2012. No history of that decision will be complete unless it includes this brilliant and eminently readable little book - a book that deserves to become an instant classic." - Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor, leading constitutional law scholar, acclaimed Supreme Court advocate, and author of many books, including the highly influential treatise, American Constitutional Law. "An illuminating analysis of the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare that offers rigor and insight, written by a brilliant legal mind." - Amy Chua, Yale Law Professor and author of World on Fire, Days of Empire, and Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. "Einer Elhauge is the single best and most incisive commentator on the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Affordable Care Act more generally. His gathering of precedent and penetrating analysis will convince you that much of the Court's arguments were mistaken." - Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania Professor and Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, former Special Advisor for Health Policy to the Obama White House OMB, New York Times columnist, and author of many books on health care. "Elhauge asked a brilliant and devastatingly simple question of the Supreme Court's so-called 'originalists.' They simply ignored it. This beautiful book tells a story history won't forget." - Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, and leading scholar and author of many books on Constitutional Law and Internet Law. "Einer Elhauge brings to the debate over the individual mandate an extraordinary combination of skills: he is deeply knowledgeable about health policy, and he is also a terrific lawyer. This book is the result of his exceptional insight, and it demonstrates why the attacks on the health care reform law were so utterly misguided. Anyone who wants to understand this chapter in our history should read this book." - David Strauss, University of Chicago Law Professor, author of The Living Constitution, and leading constitutional law scholar who has argued 18 cases before the Supreme Court. "Elhauge's lucid account of the battle over health care mandates seeks answers to important questions wherever they may lie, without letting policy preferences or political ideology drive outcomes. That's a rare and refreshing approach. He re-inspires confidence in the notion that the Constitution's principles can unite people with disparate views, rather than being bent by a bare majority to whatever preordained task is at hand." - Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard Law Professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, and author of The Future of the Internet -- And How to Stop It.
NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF 2021: POLITICS BY THE WALL STREET JOURNAL "A must-read for anyone interested in the Supreme Court."—MIKE LEE, Republican senator from Utah Politics have always intruded on Supreme Court appointments. But although the Framers would recognize the way justices are nominated and confirmed today, something is different. Why have appointments to the high court become one of the most explosive features of our system of government? As Ilya Shapiro makes clear in Supreme Disorder, this problem is part of a larger phenomenon. As government has grown, its laws reaching even further into our lives, the courts that interpret those laws have become enormously powerful. If we fight over each new appointment as though everything were at stake, it’s because it is. When decades of constitutional corruption have left us subject to an all-powerful tribunal, passions are sure to flare on the infrequent occasions when the political system has an opportunity to shape it. And so we find the process of judicial appointments verging on dysfunction. Shapiro weighs the many proposals for reform, from the modest (term limits) to the radical (court-packing), but shows that there can be no quick fix for a judicial system suffering a crisis of legitimacy. And in the end, the only measure of the Court’s legitimacy that matters is the extent to which it maintains, or rebalances, our constitutional order.
Many of these questions--including the powers of the federal government, the individual right to bear arms, and the parameters of corporate political speech--had long been considered settled. But the Federalist Society was able to upend the existing conventional wisdom, promoting constitutional theories that had previously been dismissed as ludicrously radical. Hollis-Brusky argues that the Federalist Society offers several of the crucial ingredients needed to accomplish this constitutional revolution. It serves as a credentialing institution for conservative lawyers and judges, legitimizes novel interpretations of the constitution through a conservative framework, and provides a judicial audience of like-minded peers, which prevents the well-documented phenomenon of conservative judges turning moderate after years on the bench. Through these functions, it is able to exercise enormous influence on important cases at every level.
“Hamburger argues persuasively that America has overlaid its constitutional system with a form of governance that is both alien and dangerous.” —Law and Politics Book Review While the federal government traditionally could constrain liberty only through acts of Congress and the courts, the executive branch has increasingly come to control Americans through its own administrative rules and adjudication, thus raising disturbing questions about the effect of this sort of state power on American government and society. With Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Philip Hamburger answers this question in the affirmative, offering a revisionist account of administrative law. Rather than accepting it as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative. Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution—and constitutions in general—were designed to prevent. With a clear yet many-layered argument that draws on history, law, and legal thought, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious—and profoundly unlawful—return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism.
Leading scholars from across the social sciences present empirical evidence that the obstacle of regulatory capture is more surmountable than previously thought.
