Cass Sunstein

An op-ed by Cass R. Sunstein. Everyone knows that under Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court often divides 5-4 -- an even split between liberals and conservatives, with Justice Anthony Kennedy providing the swing vote. But here’s a puzzle. Over recent decades, and under many different chief justices, the share of 5-4 splits in the Court’s docket has been fairly constant -- on average, in the vicinity of 20 percent. Is the Court always split between liberals and conservatives, or is there some other explanation?

An op-ed by Cass R. Sunstein. There are all sorts of things people want the federal government to do -- for example, reduce poverty, make highways safer, protect against workplace risks, safeguard privacy online, regulate their least favorite companies or, for that matter, engage in deregulation. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, federal officials often answer: “Not now.” In turn, public-interest groups, individuals and businesses have asked federal courts to require public officials to act. And for decades, courts came back with unclear and confusing responses -- until 2007, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency had acted unlawfully in refusing to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. That decision led to last week’s proposals for new limits on emissions from existing power plants. And it raised the real possibility that courts would start to oversee federal agencies' authority to set priorities -- and constrain the president’s authority as well.

An op-ed by Cass R. Sunstein. We are in the midst of a shift in political thinking about constitutional amendments. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is among many progressive thinkers now promoting constitutional change -- in her case, to allow Congress to restrict corporate spending on political campaigns. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in a new book, calls for no fewer than six constitutional amendments, involving not only campaign finance but also gun control, capital punishment, political gerrymandering, sovereign immunity and federalism. Yet, for decades, constitutional change was something championed more by conservatives than by liberals. What's going on?

After Cass Sunstein co-wrote bestseller Nudge on behavioral economics with Richard Thaler, he went on to run the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009-2012, acting as the President's top regulator. But some of his more curious — and controversial — research is on conspiracy theories: how they work, and why they're often rational for people to believe. His new book, Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas, details this research. He spoke with Ezra Klein on his theory, and how it helps explain the disagreements between our current political parties.

A book review by Cass R. Sunstein. When I joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School in 1981, there were two defining figures: Richard Posner and Richard Epstein. Posner was the world’s most important voice in the emerging field of “law and economics.” At the time he believed that courts should “maximize wealth.” Epstein, a defender of personal autonomy with strong libertarian inclinations, was Posner’s most vocal critic. At the University of Chicago Law School lunch table, where the faculty ate four times each week, the two had some fierce struggles. Tempers flared. No one who was there will forget those lunches, which sometimes seemed like a form of combat.

An op-ed by Cass R. Sunstein. What, exactly, is wrong with economic inequality? Thomas Piketty’s improbable best-seller, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," has put that question in sharp relief. As just about everyone now knows, Piketty contends that over the next century, inequality is likely to grow. In response, he outlines a series of policies designed to reduce wealth at the very top of society, including a progressive income tax and a global wealth tax. But Piketty says surprisingly little about why economic inequality, as such, is a problem.

An op-ed by Cass R. Sunstein. The White House Correspondents' Association dinner, which I attended last Saturday night, is an astonishing spectacle -- a unique combination of journalists, government officials and celebrities. Amid the laughter and the conviviality, however, there is an uneasy undercurrent: Many journalists are disturbed that outside of an annual dinner, they cannot get a lot of access to those same officials.

An op-ed by Cass R. Sunstein. Saturday marked the death of Gary Becker, perhaps the greatest social scientist of the last 50 years. More than anyone else, Becker is responsible for the rigorous pursuit of the idea that human beings are rational and responsive to incentives. That’s a simple idea, but Becker used it to produce path-breaking insights into countless areas, including crime, discrimination, addiction, politics and the structure of the family. Becker was a colleague and a friend of mine, and he was a quintessentially rational man.

In a week of many developments in the world of law, Harvard Law School faculty were online, in print, and on-the-air offering analyses and opinions.

In a week of many developments in the world of law, Harvard Law School faculty were online, in print, and on-the-air offering analyses and opinions.

“Designing Systems and Processes for Managing Disputes” (Wolters Kluwer, 2013), co-written by Clinical Professor Robert C. Bordone ’97, Professor Emeritus Frank E.A. Sander ’52, Nancy H. Rogers, and Craig A. McEwen, is the first course book of its kind offering a multidisciplinary and skill-based guide to designing and implementing alternative dispute resolution systems.