Oct 13, 2025 Fred O. Smith, Jr.Courts Law
Curtis Bradley & Tara Leigh Grove,
Disfavored Supreme Court Precedent in the Lower Courts, __
Va. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2026), available at
SSRN (Dec. 6, 2024).
Sometimes the Supreme Court overrules prior precedents with unmistakable clarity. Think Dobbs overruling Roe. (“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”) Or Lawrence overruling Bowers. (“Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”) But other precedents die slower deaths, creating a doctrinal twilight zone where lower courts must apply decisions the Supreme Court has undermined without formally overruling. Curtis Bradley and Tara Leigh Grove tackle this judicial limbo in their forthcoming article, asking how lower courts should handle precedents that are neither dead nor fully alive—and what this uncertainty means for a legal system that depends on clear hierarchical commands.
The most common approach to navigating the twilight—which the Supreme Court has repeatedly endorsed—mandates that lower courts treat Supreme Court precedent as fully authoritative regardless of subsequent signals suggesting its demise. As the Court stated in Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc. (1989) and reaffirmed in cases such as Agostini v. Felton (1997): “If a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Continue reading "Killing Precedent Softly"
Oct 10, 2025 Charles O'KelleyCorporate Law
Zohar Goshen, Assaf Hamdani, & Dorothy Lund,
Fixing MFW: Fairness and Vision in Controller Self-Dealing, __
Harv. Bus. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming), available at
SSRN (Dec. 17, 2024).
In the past 24 months, Delaware’s place as state-corporation-law hegemon has undergone sustained hurricane-force blowback from Court of Chancery and Supreme Court decisions and subsequent legislation, which have shattered the long-standing belief that for most publicly-traded firms, the benefits of incorporating in Delaware exceed the costs, including the costs and risks of stockholder litigation. At the center of Delaware’s existential crisis are the Court of Chancery decision in the Tornetta litigation rescinding Elon Musk’s $57 billion compensation package, the Supreme Court decision in the Match litigation extending MFW to all controlling-shareholder-conflicted transactions, and the Delaware legislature’s February 2025 enactment of Senate Bill 21 in reaction to those and related judicial decisions. Fundamental to a meaningful critique of these cases and Senate Bill 21 is an under-the-radar question: how should entrepreneur-influenced or entrepreneur-controlled transactions and decisions fit in a value-optimizing theory of the business judgment rule? Focus on this question, and the nature and role of the entrepreneur have largely been missing from scholarly commentary. A much-needed antidote is now available in a provocative forthcoming article, Zohar Goshen, Assaf Hamdani, and Dorothy Lund, Fixing MFW: Fairness and Vision in Controller Self-Dealing (hereinafter “Fixing MFW”), available at SSRN and forthcoming in the Harvard Business Law Review.
While Fixing MFW’s title suggests a focus only on controller self-dealing, its actual focus is much broader, including, as its poster child, Elon Musk, a quintessential entrepreneur whose stockholding would not treat him as a controlling stockholder under the safe harbor provided by Senate Bill 21. In other words, a central concern of Fixing MFW is how the business judgment rule should apply whenever a powerful entrepreneur, whether a controlling stockholder or not, receives non-ratable benefits in a transaction with the corporation. Such transactions would include the compensation package Musk received from Tesla, or the merger of Musk’s energy company, SolarCity, into Tesla. As Fixing MFW convincingly demonstrates, these transactions should be analyzed similarly, whether Musk falls within the governing understanding of a controlling stockholder or not, because they both involve the insolvable problem of what the authors call “idiosyncratic value.” Continue reading "Understanding The Nature and Role of The Entrepreneur and Entrepreneur-created Value in Theorizing The Business Judgment Rule"
Oct 9, 2025 Eboni NelsonContracts
Although often eclipsed by the prominence of large companies, small businesses play a critical role in helping to grow our economy. Their size, market footprint, resources, experience, and sophistication levels are as varied as the goods and services they provide. In her thought-provoking article The Small Business Dilemma, Professor Rachel G. Ngo Ntomp argues that contract law fails to take these variances into account when considering the contractual relationships between small businesses and other companies. She asserts that small businesses can find themselves caught in a catch-22 by being perceived and treated as “big fish” in dealings with both consumers and businesses when, in fact, they are “small fish” when contracting with companies with more resources and often more bargaining power. Considering that this bargaining power imbalance can result in unfair terms that harm small businesses, Professor Ntomp convincingly draws upon U.S. and international law to advocate for proposals including “a reformulation of the unconscionability doctrine under Section 2-302 of the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] to provide a fairer and more equitable treatment of small businesses in their contractual relations with larger entities.”
Professor Ntomp situates the issue of small business protection within the broader context of consumer protection. She notes that the weaker party rationale for protecting consumers in contractual relationships is rarely applied to small businesses when they engage in commercial dealings with other businesses even though many small businesses find themselves in vulnerable positions with a lack of bargaining power similar to consumers. Continue reading "“Consumer” Protection for Small Businesses"
Oct 8, 2025 Andrea KatzConstitutional Law
Christine Kexel Chabot,
Rejecting the Unitary Executive, __
Utah L. Rev. __ (forthcoming, 2025), available at
SSRN (Sept. 21, 2024).
It’s no secret that the President is having a great run in court. Over the last two decades, the Roberts Court has protected the office from legal process; built out presidential control over foreign affairs, national security, and the hiring, firing, and oversight of officers; and recently hinted it would go further by extending the president’s power to independent agencies. Behind these cases lurks the theory of the unitary executive, which reads the Constitution to give the President far-reaching powers over the executive branch, including the power to fire officers at will. First advanced in modern form by lawyers in the Reagan administration, the theory inspired a generation of originalist scholars who claimed it as an authentic account of the Framers’ thought. Since then, scholars have sharply pushed back, pointing out that the theory is anachronistic, an overreading of the text, and contradicted by early American history and practice. Despite the controversy, the Roberts Court, untroubled, continues to apply it.
Enter Christine Kexel Chabot’s forthcoming article Rejecting the Unitary Executive, which poses the provocative question: What if we required proof that the Founding generation actually believed in a unitary executive? Rejecting does just that, with illuminating results. Applying philosopher Karl Popper’s theory of empirical falsifiability to the realm of legal history, Professor Chabot subjects unitary theory to a rigorous test. In her words, the theory’s main claim is that Continue reading "Falsifying the Unitary Executive: Popperian Empiricism and History’s Uses and Misuses"
Oct 7, 2025 Margaret KwokaAdministrative Law
Jonathan David Shaub,
White House Inspection, 103
Wash. U. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2026) available
at SSRN (Feb. 25, 2025).
Allegations of illegality—sometimes quite serious in nature—are, sadly, no stranger to the presidency. Nearly every recent President has faced some sort of scandal and attendant inquiry. They all sound familiar. Obviously, there is Nixon’s benchmark Watergate scandal. But then there is also the Iran-Contra affair of Reagan’s presidency. Clinton’s extramarital activities. George W. Bush’s involvement in outing Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer. Biden’s personal possession of classified documents. Trump’s involvement in the January 6 attacks on the Capitol. Safe to say, these matters show no sign of abating. The theater of investigations that follow these scandals is also familiar, all promising some version of accountability. Special prosecutors are appointed. Inquiries are launched. Grand juries are sometimes convened. Congress may even bring articles of impeachment or hold an actual impeachment trial.
But the political fight often focuses on the investigation itself. Claims of executive privilege prevent access to key documents, allegations of partisanship color the investigations, and constitutional constraints abound, all while accountability remains elusive. In an incredible read and a fantastic example of one of my favorite forms of scholarship, Professor Jonathan Shaub sketches a vision for reforms that parts the muddy waters of our current practices and shows us a practical and meaningful path to accountability at the highest levels of the executive branch. Indeed, the best part of Professor Shaub’s vision, laid out in White House Inspection, is that he divorces the trickier consequences—actual enforcement or legal peril—from the kind of accountability that frankly has often had greater effect, the watchful eye of an independent party empowered to inspect the actions of the President. Continue reading "Informational Accountability for the President"
Oct 6, 2025 Kenneth W. SimonsTorts
Emad H. Atiq,
The Disaggregated Hand Formula, 114
Cal. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2026), available at
SSRN (Mar. 1, 2025).
The Learned Hand test is both famous and infamous. The main source of its fame is the law and economics movement, which drew attention to the test in the 1970’s. According to Richard Posner and other scholars in that movement, the test is both a descriptively accurate account of how legal fact-finders understand negligence, and a normatively attractive account of why tort law imposes liability for harms caused by negligence—namely, to promote efficiency and minimize the aggregate costs of precautions and the harms that precautions could avoid.
But the Hand test is also infamous. The test provides that an actor is negligent just in case the burden of taking a precaution (B) is less than the probability of the harm that the precaution would have avoided multiplied by the severity of that harm (PxL). Critics protest that the test is not an accurate account of how the law defines negligence. And more fundamentally, they object that treating this formula as the test of negligence is normatively objectionable, indeed abhorrent. If the burden is only slightly more than the expected harm (the harm’s severity discounted by its probability), the formula declares that the actor may freely impose the risk without fear of tort liability if the risk generates harms–even very serious harms–to others. Continue reading "Does the Hand Formula Express Efficiency or Justice? Or Both?"
Oct 3, 2025 Sachin S. PandyaWork Law
Elizabeth C. Tippett & Jamillah B. Williams,
Misjudging a Reasonable Jury: Evidence that Courts Dismiss Meritorious Harassment Claims, available at
SSRN (May 7, 2025).
How often and why do judges erroneously conclude, in Title VII harassment cases, that there isn’t enough for a reasonable jury to find that the plaintiff suffered “severe or pervasive” enough harassment for Title VII liability? These questions are not easy to answer. No one can directly observe the counterfactual, i.e., how a jury would have ruled had the case gone to trial. And if deciding what a “reasonable” jury might do requires inferring what most juries, or a jury under ideal conditions, would do, then judges could still be good forecasters even if any particular jury would have gone the other way.
Enter Tippett and Williams with a study that provides serious leverage for answering these questions. They first sampled Title VII harassment case opinions in Westlaw between 1995 – 2019 (n = 81, mostly summary judgment motions) in which the court decided whether or not there was “an issue of fact on whether the conduct qualified as ‘severe or pervasive’” enough for a Title VII violation. In 53 of the 81 cases (65%), the court found that no reasonable jury could find that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough. (P. 19.) Continue reading "Deciding Whether A Reasonable Jury Would Find Harassment Severe or Pervasive Enough"
Oct 2, 2025 Kent D. SchenkelTrusts & Estates
Brian Galle, David Gamage & Bob Lord,
Taxing Dynasties, available at
SSRN (April 11, 2025).
“Only morons pay the estate tax.” That is a bit of hyperbole, of course, from Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council during the first Trump administration. But those paying attention know that the federal transfer taxes don’t work very well. Instead, highly effective estate tax dodges pervade, and these techniques are particularly effective as applied to the largest estates. Brian Galle, David Gamage, and Bob Lord, in their paper, Taxing Dynasties, citing their own empirical study of data culled from the IRS, conclude that these taxes fail to reach at least $4.5 trillion of huge, family-controlled fortunes. And for this, they’ve proposed a meticulous, politically savvy, and technically brilliant prescription.
They point out that most of this $4.5 billion in transferred wealth is held in “dynasty trusts,” which are devices designed to escape wealth transfer tax for generations, if not permanently. Taxing Dynasties proposes an annual “withholding tax” on these trusts. It takes aim at trusts held by those “with more money than they can reasonably spend in a lifetime, the .01% richest citizens,” and would function as a minimum tax on those trusts. The authors’ proposal is not just an academic pipe dream. They are working with at least one Senator to devise legislation incorporating their ideas, which they expect to be introduced in Congress sometime in 2025. Continue reading "A Prescription for Taxation of Dynasty Trusts"
Oct 1, 2025 Natalie RamTechnology Law
- Andrew G. Ferguson, Digital Rummaging, 101 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1473 (2024).
- Andrew G. Ferguson, Everything-Everywhere Searches, _ G.W. J. of L. & Tech. _ (forthcoming), available at SSRN (Feb. 17, 2025).
Advances in digital surveillance technologies have posed difficult questions for Fourth Amendment doctrine. For instance, does the government need a warrant to install cameras on poles along a street to monitor who enters and exits homes? What if the government wants a list of all cell phones near a robbery scene at the time of the crime? Is the answer different if the government wants several days of data, but only about one person? What if the data comes from an app developer like Waze (or your flashlight app) or a smart home device like an Alexa, rather than a cell phone provider?
The Supreme Court has begun to address these issues in cases like Riley (barring warrantless cell phone searches during arrest) and Carpenter (requiring warrants for long-term cell phone location data). But as Andrew G. Ferguson argues in two recent articles—Digital Rummaging and Everything-Everywhere Searches—Fourth Amendment doctrine has nonetheless not kept pace with the scale of digital surveillance. In a turn to history that may prove particularly persuasive to constitutional originalists, Ferguson argues that the Founding generation’s objections to “rummaging” through general warrants provide an appropriate guiding principle for constraining surveillance in the digital age. Continue reading "Rummaging Rebooted"
Sep 30, 2025 Susan MorseTax Law
Marilyn Hajj,
Waiter, Extra Tip, No Tax: A Distributional Analysis, 33
Geo. J. on Poverty L. and Pol’y __ (forthcoming, 2026), available at
SSRN (Feb. 1, 2025).
In Waiter, Extra Tip, No Tax: A Distributional Analysis, Marilyn Hajj offers a poverty law take on a classic and timely tax question: the taxation of tips. Her refreshing article avoids tax law’s knee-jerk opposition to a tax break for tips by offering an analysis that advocates for redistribution to low-income tipped workers. Although she does not give the tip tax breaks in the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act glowing marks, she explains that the new law would be preferable to the earlier status quo if it were better targeted and more accessible to low-income workers.
Hajj begins with the story of tipping, which traces to the “vails” expected by household staff at English homes in the 1700s. American tipping “seems to have originated in the traveling aristocracy.” After the Civil War, it developed into a custom of class and race bias. Hajj writes that Black workers in service jobs, for instance at restaurants or as railroad porters, received lower wages, and that employers used tips to justify this. The hospitality industry successfully defeated anti-tipping statute statutes; initially obtained an exemption from the federal minimum wage; and continues to take advantage of a “tip credit” rule that results, in some states, in an hourly minimum wage of $2.13 for tipped workers. Of tipped workers, 37% do not make enough to owe any income tax and 11.3% experience poverty, which is more than double the rate for non-tipped workers. Continue reading "Taxing Tips Is Not Just About Tax Law"
