Faculty Bibliography

How much information is too much? Do we need to know how many calories are in the giant vat of popcorn that we bought on our way into the movie theater? Do we want to know if we are genetically predisposed to a certain disease? Can we do anything useful with next week's weather forecast for Paris if we are not in Paris? In Too Much Information, Cass Sunstein examines the effects of information on our lives. Policymakers emphasize “the right to know,” but Sunstein takes a different perspective, arguing that the focus should be on human well-being and what information contributes to it. Government should require companies, employers, hospitals, and others to disclose information not because of a general “right to know” but when the information in question would significantly improve people's lives. Sunstein argues that the information on warnings and mandatory labels is often confusing or irrelevant, yielding no benefit. He finds that people avoid information if they think it will make them sad (and seek information they think will make them happy). Our information avoidance and information seeking is notably heterogeneous—some of us do want to know the popcorn calorie count, others do not. Of course, says Sunstein, we are better off with stop signs, warnings on prescriptions drugs, and reminders about payment due dates. But sometimes less is more. What we need is more clarity about what information is actually doing or achieving.

In After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency, Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith provide a comprehensive roadmap for reform of the presidency in the post-Trump era—whether that comes in four months or four years.In fourteen chapters they offer more than fifty concrete proposals concerning presidential conflicts of interest, foreign influence on elections, pardon power abuse, assaults on the press, law enforcement independence, Special Counsel procedures, FBI investigations of presidents and presidential campaigns, the role of the White House Counsel, war powers, control of nuclear weapons, executive branch vacancies, domestic emergency powers, how one administration should examine possible crimes by the president of a prior administration, and more. Each set of reform proposals is preceded by rich descriptions of relevant presidential history, and relevant background law and norms, that place the proposed reforms in context. All of the proposals are prefaced by a chapter that explains how Trump--and, in some cases, his predecessors--conducted the presidency in ways that justify these reforms.After Trump will thus be essential reading for the coming debate on how to reconstruct the laws and norms that constitute and govern the world’s most powerful office.It’s hard to imagine two better co-authors for the task. Both served in senior executive branch positions—in the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush, respectively—and have written widely on the presidency.Bob Bauer served from 2010-2011 as White House Counsel to President Barack Obama, who in 2013 named Bauer to be Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration. He is a Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law, as well as the co-director of its Legislative and Regulatory Process Clinic.Jack Goldsmith served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 2003-2004, and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense from 2002-2003. He is the Learned Hand Professor at Harvard Law School, co-founder of Lawfare, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Together, in this book, they set the terms for the national discussion to come about the presidency, its powers, and its limits.

Mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRTs, also referred to as mitochondrial replacement therapies) have given hope to many women who wish to have genetically related children but have mitochondrial DNA mutations in their eggs. MRTs have also spurred deep ethical disagreemensts and led to different regulatory approaches worldwide. In this review, we discuss the current regulation of MRTs across several countries. After discussing the basics of the science, we describe the current law and policy directions in seven countries: the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, Germany, Israel, and Singapore. We also discuss the emerging phenomenon of medical tourism (also called medical travel) for MRTs to places like Greece, Spain, Mexico, and Ukraine. We then pull out some key findings regarding similarities and differences in regulatory approaches around the world.

Is it wrong for professors to quote epithets — especially “nigger” — in class or other educational settings? This question has often been in the news in recent years, both as to law schools and as to other departments. This article discusses the matter, building on a closely related practice: how judges and lawyers deal with epithets in litigation and opinion writing.

Group ostracize members. Sometimes they do it to enforce welfare-maximizing norms, but other times ostracism reduces welfare. Japanese villages have long used ostracism as a tool for conformity, and the targets have sometimes sued in response. The cases that have reached the courts disproportionately involve welfare-reducing behavior by the community; for example, ostracism against targets who report corruption. The targets usually win the civil cases against ostracizers and prosecutors usually win the criminal cases. Yet the targets seem not to have sued for financial or injunctive relief, and the prosecutors seem not to have pushed for prison terms. Instead, they have used the courts for an informational end: to certify and publicize innocence. This end is of minor importance in normal litigation, but crucial fo ostracism, as we explain using a formal model. We use case examples and the model to explore the factors that cause disputes to lead to ostracism and ostracisms to lead to litigation.

Jon Meacham highlights the late civil rights leader’s determination and decency.

The Supreme Court's June 2020 opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam unjustifiably reopens settled questions about the Habeas Corpus Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and endangers everyone -- U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike.

How far have we come putting into practice what was declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which this year marks its 70th anniversary? How can the Church respond today to the new challenges threatening these rights, whether relativism, fundamentalism, and persecution or new types of poverty and oppression? And with whom can the Church engage on these issues? With states, religious leaders, international institutions, cultural institutions, or first and foremost with global civil society? In addition, what are the roots of fundamental rights, and what response can there be to the danger of a multiplication of rights that can paradoxically threaten concepts on the rule of law and human dignity? These are the fundamental questions addressed and debated by the experts whose essays appear in this book. Fundamental Rights and Conflicts among Rights is divided into four parts: Genesis and Meaning of the Idea of Religious Liberty, Laicité and Natural Law, Birth and Transformation of the Culture of Liberty and Human Rights, and the Multiplication of Rights and the Risk of Destruction of the Idea of Right. Throughout the volume, prestigious international experts analyze these issues. Among them are Giuseppe Dalla Torre (Libera Università Maria SS. Assunta), Jean Louis Ska (Pontificio Istituto Biblico), Robert P. George (Princeton University), Marta Cartabia (vice president of the Italian Constitutional Court), Carlos Ignacio Massini (Mendoza, Argentina), Barbara Zehnpfennig (Universität Passau), Mary Ann Glendon (Harvard University), Joseph H. Weiler (New York University), and Roberto Baratta (Macerata, Italia). The volume also contains an essay by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, secretary of state, on "The Church's Interlocutors in the Debate and in the Affirmation of Human Rights."

The 2020 Annual Supplement, like prior Supplements, includes excerpts from recent scholarship and from important new decisions of the Supreme Court. This was a most interesting Term, and several of the new decisions that are covered in the Annual Supplement are listed below. New to the 2020 supplement: Trump v. Vance Espinoza v. Montana June Medical Services v. Russo Seila Law v. CFPB Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morissey-Berra Chiafalo v. Washington Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania

For nearly half a century, the bundling of research services into commissions that paid for the execution of securities trades has been the focus of both policy discussion and academic debate. The practice whereby asset management firms make use of investor funds to cover the costs of research, known as “soft dollar” payments in the United States, resembles a form of kickback or self-dealing. The payments allow asset managers to use investor funds to subsidize the cost of the asset managers’ own research efforts even though those managers charge investors a separate and explicit management fee for advisory services. So why does this form of kickback continue to exist? Over the years, defenders of the practice have argued that soft dollars mitigate principal-agent problems between the investment manager and the broker, improve fund performance, and provide a public good in terms of the increased production of research on public companies. This article evaluates these theoretical arguments through the lens of academic work done in the past as well as an emerging new body of empirical studies exploring the impact of MiFID II, a European Union Directive that severely restricted the use of soft dollar payments in European capital markets as of January 2018. The weight of empirical evidence, including recent evidence coming out of Europe, suggests that the theoretical arguments in favor of soft dollars are not robust. In particular, MiFID II’s unbundling of commissions appears to have, on balance, improved European market efficiency by eliminating redundancy and producing information that is of greater value to investors.

This Essay is a personal reflection on the state of scholarship in the field of comparative constitutional law. I draw parallels between the development of and reaction to “critical perspectives” on domestic US constitutional law in the 1970s and 1980s and the development and reaction to similar perspectives on comparative constitutional law today. I argue that the parallels have similar political roots, in concern that critical perspectives undermine the ability of constitutional law, whether domestic or comparative, to resist conservative and anti-liberal tendencies. I conclude with some speculations about the source of the political commitments by scholars of comparative constitutional law, and in particular about the way the field’s overall cosmopolitanism affects scholarship on anti-cosmopolitan populisms.

The goal shouldn’t be to make the Court less ideological, but to make it less powerful.

There has been increasing interest in the use of home monitoring technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic to decrease interpersonal contacts and the resultant risks of exposure for people to the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. This Perspective explores how the accelerated development of these technologies also raises major concerns pertaining to safety and privacy. We make recommendations for needed interventions to ensure safety and review best practices and US regulatory requirements for privacy and security. We discuss, among other topics, Emergency Use Authorizations for medical devices and privacy laws of the USA and Europe.

This is Chapter 19 of our Advertising and Marketing Law casebook, a chapter we are publishing only online. It takes a deeper look at how law regulates two specific advertising situations: (1) discriminatory advertising, principally in the housing context, and (2) political advertising.

Contracting often facilitates happiness. It enables us to do things we would otherwise be unable to do and thus to live more fully, richly, enjoyably. We enter into contracts constantly, often with little consciousness about legal consequences. Typically we become self-conscious only when a problem arises. Our course will mainly be about problems arising from contracting. It is largely an exploration of contract pathology.

Racism in America has been the subject of serious scholarship for decades. At Harvard University Press, we’ve had the honor of publishing some of the most influential books on the subject.

A firm licenses a product to overlapping generations of heterogeneous consumers. Consumers may purchase the product, pirate/steal it, or forego it. Higher consumer types enjoy higher gross benefits and are caught stealing at a higher rate. The firm may commit to an out-of-court cash settlement policy that is “soft” on pirates, so high-types purchase and low-types steal. This facilitates price discrimination. Firm profits rise if the firm bundles a license agreement with the cash settlement. However, requiring pirates to sign license agreements as part of the settlement has ambiguous welfare effects and may deter the entry of more efficient competitors.

This conversation between Nobel Laureates Amartya Sen and Angus Deaton, moderated by Annual Review of Economics Editorial Committee Member Tim Besley, focuses on bringing ethical issues into economics, and the implications that this has for the practice and teaching of economics. A video of this interview is available online at https://www.annualreviews.org/r/EconMoralCompass.

Scott focuses on the conflicts in the state of Louisiana over a provision in the post-Civil War Louisiana Constitution of 1868 that guaranteed “public rights” to all regardless of race. While we still live with shockingly high levels of racial discrimination in public accommodations, front and center today are claims that the Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty requires exemptions from state laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. To understand the historical context within which we confront this issue today, it will help to understand how public accommodations law has changed over time through the course of United States history.

We are living through extraordinary times as the United States has struggled to deal with the global COVID-19 pandemic, and as of the writing of this paper, we remain in the midst of the crisis. We still do not know what the full economic and financial consequences of the pandemic will be, but they are likely to persist for an extended period, as many people are unlikely to return to normal work or consumption patterns soon, and household and business defaults are likely to increase and negatively affect the financial sector. This paper, written to assist faculty in teaching about the pandemic, focuses on key actions taken by the financial regulators in response to the crisis so far, giving a detailed summary of the actions taken by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and Congress. We discuss the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy actions, emergency lending facilities, and supervisory forbearance by the federal banking agencies. We also provide a summary of financial provisions of the CARES Act, including an analysis of the Paycheck Protection Program. We explore a number of central themes already emerging, including the blurry line between monetary policy and fiscal policy. We also highlight the fact that unlike the Financial Crisis of 2008, today’s economic crisis is caused by the failure to take sufficient public health actions to contain a global pandemic, not poor policy and risk choices in the financial markets; the fact that the crisis is caused by a public health failure poses unique problems for economic and financial policymakers in crafting responses.

The present paper focuses on green defaults as demand-side policies supporting the uptake of renewable energy in Germany. It sets out to gain a better understanding of whether and for whom green electricity defaults work. The present study is one of the first to use a large-scale data set to investigate this question. We combine micro-level data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) covering private households (including a wealth of individual information) with macro-level information such as population density of a region and proportion of energy suppliers in a given region that use a green opt-out tariff within their basic supply. We show that in Germany, green defaults, automatically enrolling customers in renewable energy sources, tend to stick, especially but not only among those who are concerned about the problem of climate change. This finding, based on real-world rather than experimental evidence, attests to the power of automatic enrollment in addressing environmental problems in Germany and potentially beyond, including climate change, and also adds to the growing literature on the substantial effects of shifting from opt-in to opt-out strategies.

In June of 2020, the Department of Labor proposed a rule-making on financial factors in selecting ERISA plan investments (“Proposal”), in particular environmental, social, and governance factors (“ESG”). In general, we are supportive of the Proposal’s central purpose of subjecting ESG investing to the same fiduciary principles of loyalty and prudence that are applicable to any type or kind of investment. We do, however, have some criticisms. Our basic point is that the law neither favors nor disfavors ESG investing. Any investment decision by an ERISA trustee or other fiduciary — whether in the context of a direct investment, shareholder engagement (including proxy voting), or menu construction, and whether reliant on ESG factors or otherwise — is subject to the same fiduciary principles embodied in the duties of loyalty and prudence. Our chief criticisms, therefore, reflect instances in which the Proposal differentiates or could be construed as differentiating ESG investing from other types or kinds of investment strategies. First, the Proposal and accompanying commentary could be read to suggest that all manner of ESG investing is inherently suspect, presumably on fiduciary loyalty grounds, and therefore that ESG investing by an ERISA trustee or other fiduciary is always subject to enhanced scrutiny that requires extra process relative to other types of kinds of investment strategies. Such a position is inconsistent with law and sound policy. To be sure, an ERISA trustee or other fiduciary violates the duty of loyalty if she uses ESG factors to provide benefits for third parties (what we call “collateral benefits ESG”). However, use of ESG factors in pursuit of enhanced risk-adjusted returns (what we call “risk-return ESG”) is not suspect under the duty of loyalty. Instead, risk-return ESG is analyzed under the duty of prudence, which applies in the same manner to risk-return ESG as to any other type or kind of investment strategy. Departure from neutral application of fiduciary principles also requires drawing distinctions between ESG investing and other investing, a definitional morass that would create uncertainty and invite litigation. Second, portions of the commentary are unclear or phrased in a manner that could be construed as taking positions, such as with respect to active versus passive investing, that are not consistent with neutral application of the principles of fiduciary investment law. The commentary is also notable for not addressing certain other relevant matters, such as the use of ESG factors in shareholder engagement (sometimes called “stewardship” or “active shareholding”). We identify material instances of such language or omissions and urge appropriate clarification, particularly regarding the “tiebreaker” rule for purportedly economically equivalent investments. This comment letter is largely but not entirely based on “Reconciling Fiduciary Duty and Social Conscience: The Law and Economics of ESG Investing by a Trustee,” 72 Stanford Law Review 381 (2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3244665.

The negotiation literature has extensively examined the topic of power and how it can be wielded. Numerous frameworks have been created and utilized in the various treatises on negotiations; analyzing the power differential in any given situation is a common teaching technique. However, despite this focus on the topic, discussions of power have been mainly focused on negotiations in the private sector. As a result, many of the most common frameworks are oriented toward this type of situation, resulting in a clumsy application to a public‐sector negotiation. Given the growing importance of negotiations to public‐sector leaders, we provide a new structure for analyzing power that can be utilized in such situations. For a municipal leader confronted with a complex public‐private partnership, it is important to have the right tools to use when examining the power dynamics at play. After examining several current models of power, as well as other writings on the topic in negotiation and strategy literature, we present a new model. This model divides power into different categories based on whether it stems from formal or informal mechanisms, and then offers several specific forms relevant to the public sector. We then use this new model to examine a case study involving the new mayor of Manchester, New Hampshire and her efforts to negotiate a better response to the opioid and homelessness crises. This case study illustrates the unique nature of public sector negotiations and provides a roadmap for negotiators looking to use our new framework.

The book brings together the most respected scholars working in the field, and presents a genuine contribution to comparative constitutional studies, comparative public law, political science and constitutional history.

The government cannot lawfully exercise its power of arrest if it doesn’t realize it is, in fact, arresting people in the first place.

Individuals who engage in “judging” – that is, render a determination in a dispute or contest between two parties – might be influenced by public pressure to favor one of the parties. Many rules and arrangements seek to insulate such individuals from public pressure or to address the effects of such pressure. We study this subject empirically, investigating the circumstances in which public pressure is more and less likely to affect judging. Using detailed data from the Bundesliga, Germany’s top soccer league, our analysis of how crowd pressure affects the decisions of referees yields two key insights. First, we show that crowd pressure biases referee’s decisions in favor of the home team for those decisions that cannot be unambiguously identified as erroneous but not for those decisions that can. In particular, referees exhibit a bias in favor of the home team with respect to more subjective decisions such as the showing of yellow cards (cautions), which is based on the referee’s judgment call, but not with respect to more objective decisions such as validating goals and awarding penalty kicks, where live TV coverage often allows for objective identification of errors. Second, we show that the effect of crowd pressure on referee decisions depends on the extent to which such pressure is viewed by the referee as understandable or reasonable (or even justified).Specifically, a referee’s bias in favor of the home team in yellow card issuance is strengthened after the referee makes an objectively identifiable error against the home team and thus might view crowd heckling as understandable. This effect is stronger when the referee’s error is costlier to the home team because the game is more important or the error is more consequential due to the closeness of the game at the time of the error. The introduction of VAR (Video Assisted Referee) technology in 2017 and Covid-19, which caused games to be played without crowds for the second part of the 2019-20 season allows us to test our results under three different regimes (pre-VAR, post-VAR, and post-VAR but without any crowd).Inspection of the results under these three different regimes serves to reinforce them. As expected, VAR reduces the number of referee errors, but the pattern of no bias with respect to errors is preserved. VAR has no effect on the number of yellow cards. Once the crowd disappears, so does the home advantage in field goals. Referee errors are unaffected, but the home bias with respect to yellow cards disappears as well. This confirms the effect that the crowd has on referee’s more subjective decisions.

This is the first chapter of the book Corporations in 100 Pages (2020), authored by Holger Spamann, Scott Hirst, and Gabriel Rauterberg. The book is an introduction to corporate law for students and anyone else interested in the foundations of corporate law. The book provides an accessible, self-contained presentation of the field’s essentials: what corporations are, how they are governed, their interactions with their investors, and other stakeholders, major transactions (M&A), and parallels with other legal entities, including partnerships. Optional background chapters cover the investor ecosystem, contemporary corporate governance, and corporate finance. The book’s exposition of doctrine and policy is nuanced and sophisticated, yet short and simple enough for a quick read. Chapter 1, “Corporations & Corporate Law,” introduces the book by addressing two questions: What are corporations? And what is corporate law? The chapter discusses the corporation as formally an abstraction to which the law assigns right and duties. Its extraordinary usefulness lies in how it allows large groups of people to organize relationships involving multiple assets, such as by pooling funds, transferring them to the corporation, and then allowing the corporation to serve as a single contracting interface with third parties. The chapter discusses how corporate law, as the subject is taught in law schools and discussed in practice, consists of the body of rules that govern the relationships among a corporation’s shareholders, its board of directors, and its managers; the relationships within each group; and the powers of each group to affect the corporation’s affairs. Corporate law is thus only a small subset of the far larger set of laws governing corporations, which includes “antitrust law,” “consumer law,” “environmental law,” and far more. Corporate law remains largely a matter of state statutory and common law, but also turns decisively on the corporation’s governing legal instruments, like the charter and bylaws, and contracts amongst its shareholders. Securities law also affects how corporations finance themselves. The chapter ends by providing examples of corporations, such as a small private corporation and a large public one, which illustrate the important legal features of the corporate form.