Skip to content

People

Einer Elhauge

  • How the T-Mobile-Sprint merger will increase inequality

    February 12, 2020

    A federal judge gave his blessing to the US $26.5 billion merger between T-Mobile and Sprint on Feb. 11, several months after the deal got final antitrust approval from the U.S. government. A group of attorneys general from 13 states and the District of Columbia had sued to try to block the merger, arguing it would reduce competition in the telecommunications industry and raise customer prices by billions of dollars. Let me add a third reason the judge should have blocked the deal: It will likely increase economic inequality....Anti-competitive behavior frequently arises when there is common ownership of corporations. The airline industry provides a great illustration of this. From 2013 to 2015, the same seven shareholders controlled 60% of United Airlines, 27.5% of Delta, 27.3% of JetBlue and 23.3% of Southwest. Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge argues this kind of common ownership of multiple companies in an industry is very likely to lead to anti-competitive prices. And that’s exactly what researchers have found. A 2018 paper showed that ticket prices are 3% to 11% higher due to common ownership, and studies of the banking and other industries have found similar effects.

  • The Hidden Dangers of the Great Index Fund Takeover

    January 9, 2020

    The potential impact of common ownership reaches beyond antitrust matters to questions about how companies are run. Index fund managers may follow passive investment strategies, but they don’t blindly choose stocks and sit back, says John Coates, a Harvard law professor. Fund companies have multiple tools to influence corporate behavior, such as developing preferred policies on executive compensation, carbon footprints, gender diversity, and other governance matters. They often do this in coordination with other industry leaders, Coates says. “A small number of unelected agents, operating largely behind closed doors, are increasingly important to the lives of millions who barely know of the existence much less the identity or inclinations of those agents,” Coates wrote in a widely cited 2018 paper. The agents, in this case, are the managers of fund companies—and the most important of those are the index giants...Lucian Bebchuk, a Harvard law professor, says index fund managers don’t have incentives to invest the time into actively supervising companies. That’s because any effort to increase the value of a company would also increase the value of the index, which in turn benefits every fund that tracks the index. As a result, the fund that pushes management can’t stand out from its peers and attract more money—yet it incurs higher stewardship costs. The concern is that such deference will “result in insufficient checks on corporate managers,” Bebchuk says. In a 2019 paper, he writes that the Big Three spent minuscule amounts on stewardship. According to Morningstar, Vanguard employed 21 people to do the work of corporate oversight at a cost, by Bebchuk’s estimate, of about $6.3 million—a drop in the bucket considering Vanguard’s trillions of dollars under management.

  • Inside The E-Book ‘War’ Waging Between Libraries And Publishers

    January 7, 2020

    According to the American Library Association (ALA), about one fifth of the books sold in the U.S. are eBooks. Some publishers are worried that the ease of borrowing a digital book from a library is hurting sales and have decided to limit how and when libraries can access digital books. Now, libraries in Massachusetts and nationwide are vowing to fight back. They say the practices are not just unfair and unethical, but they might be illegal...Librarians are also hopeful that relief will come from a Congressional antitrust subcommittee investigating competition in digital markets...Einer Elhauge, an antitrust expert at Harvard Law School, has looked into this topic. “Antitrust law is basically competition law. It’s a law that regulates how firms can compete with each other,” he said. “So, it’s similar to a referee in a sports competition.” Elhauge parsed the arguments, and as far as he can tell from all the media reports, libraries would not have an easy time winning this case. The publishers do not seem to be violating the rules. There’s no single publishing house with monopoly power. Publishers are not “meeting in a smoke-filled room and agreeing to do the same thing,” he said.

  • Inside The E-Book ‘War’ Waging Between Libraries And Publishers

    January 6, 2020

    In the old days, when you wanted to borrow a book, you trudged down to your local library and checked it out. Now, if you want an e-book or an audiobook, you can sit on your couch at home, open your library's app, and download it. Viola! According to the American Library Association (ALA), about one fifth of the books sold in the U.S. are eBooks. Some publishers are worried that the ease of borrowing a digital book from a library is hurting sales and have decided to limit how and when libraries can access digital books. Now, libraries in Massachusetts and nationwide are vowing to fight back. They say the practices are not just unfair and unethical, but they might be illegal. ... Einer Elhauge, an antitrust expert at Harvard Law School, has looked into this topic. “Antitrust law is basically competition law. It’s a law that regulates how firms can compete with each other,” he said. “So, it’s similar to a referee in a sports competition.” Elhauge parsed the arguments, and as far as he can tell from all the media reports, libraries would not have an easy time winning this case. The publishers do not seem to be violating the rules. There’s no single publishing house with monopoly power. Publishers are not “meeting in a smoke-filled room and agreeing to do the same thing,” he said.

  • America’s Dairy Farmers Are Hurting. A Giant Merger Could Make Things Worse.

    December 11, 2019

    A ninth-generation farmer, Mr. Lamport, 47, shut down his dairy business in September...His struggle is a familiar one for America’s dairy farmers, who have been battered over the past decade by a nationwide drop in milk consumption, the rise of dairy-free and plant-based alternatives and the trade war with China...But Mr. Lamport says there is another factor pushing down milk prices and harming farmers: the business practices of Dairy Farmers of America, a farmer-owned cooperative...The co-op is in talks to acquire Dean Foods, the century-old milk processing company that sought bankruptcy protection in November. No agreement has been reached, but the prospect of D.F.A.’s taking control of Dean Foods, the co-op’s biggest customer, has raised new antitrust concerns...An expert witness for the plaintiffs, the Harvard Law School antitrust specialist Einer Elhauge, calculated that D.F.A.’s business practices have reduced the price of milk by nearly 80 cents per hundred pounds sold, costing dairy farmers a total of millions of dollars every month. While those losses affect D.F.A. members and nonmembers alike, Mr. Lamport, a plaintiff in the case, said his milk profits declined soon after he joined the co-op in 2017.

  • Farmers’ case against giant dairy co-op will go to trial

    October 2, 2019

    A collection of dairy farmers who allege anti-competitive conduct by the nation’s largest dairy cooperative will take their case to a jury trial. A U.S. district court judge late last week denied a motion for summary judgment — which would have wrapped the case up without trial — from defendant Dairy Farmers of America (DFA). ...Yet the farmers in this lawsuit argue that DFA’s growing business as a processor has introduced a conflict of interest in how the co-op generates income. DFA owns many of its own processing facilities, which could mean that the less DFA pays for milk, the more money it makes from its products. As Harvard Law School Professor Einer R. Elhauge, who is serving as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in the case, put it in court documents, “Reducing raw milk prices [paid to dairy farmers] directly increases DFA’s profit per unit as a processor.”

  • Passive investments come under pressure from regulators

    September 24, 2019

    Investors are allocating ever greater sums to passive investments including ETFs and index trackers. Regulators have taken note, says David Stevenson. Passive investments are on a roll. In the US both exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and passively managed funds have recorded massive inflows. Both products share the same idea: keep costs low and eliminate the risk of an active fund manager underperforming a benchmark index by just buying the stocks inside an index...But a backlash against passive funds is building. The key issue is regulatory concerns about market power and potentially uncompetitive behaviour... The upshot, Harvard Law’s Einer Elhuage told ETF Insight, is that the Big Three’s dominance “could lead to antitrust liability.”

  • The Week in Tech: How Does 8chan Whack-a-Mole End?

    August 12, 2019

    ...A cynic may point to antitrust investigations into Facebook by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission, partly focused on how it has reduced competition, including by buying rising competitors. One of Facebook’s biggest fears seems to be that it could be forced to split off WhatsApp and Instagram. So it’s hard not to view the branding exercise as a (clumsy?) play to demonstrate that the services are too tightly intertwined to be torn apart. In the same spirit, Bloomberg reported that Facebook planned to take its first real steps toward technical integration of the services by rebuilding Instagram’s chat feature using Messenger technology. Can Facebook deter a potential breakup? Einer Elhauge, a Harvard law professor, told me that the answer could be contingent on how feasible the authorities deemed a successful split to be. “It’s hard to unscramble eggs,” he said. “Can these eggs be easily unscrambled or not?”

  • AT&T’s promise of better pay-TV prices and service is ‘bordering on the absurd’

    August 6, 2019

    When AT&T acquired Time Warner last year for $85 billion, the companies said the deal would be great for consumers, who would benefit from lower prices and improved service. The Justice Department said the opposite, predicting the merger would give AT&T so much market power that price hikes and channel blackouts were all but inevitable. Einer Elhauge, a professor at Harvard Law School, said the current circumstances “seem to be precisely what the Department of Justice predicted would happen after the merger of AT&T and Time Warner, and precisely what AT&T successfully persuaded the trial court was implausible for it to ever do post-merger.” His verdict? “It looks like the court just got it wrong.”

  • The Week in Tech: Putting an A.I. Genie Back in Its Bottle

    May 17, 2019

    This past week, Senator Kamala Harris and Joseph R. Biden Jr., two of the Democrats running for president, said it should be considered, joining another, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has called for wider Big Tech breakups. And don’t forget that Chris Hughes, a Facebook co-founder, wrote this month that he wanted its split up, too. We could argue (at length) about the validity of the idea. But how plausible is it? The weapon of choice behind most of these calls is antitrust law. Fine. There’s plenty of potentially anticompetitive behavior to go after. But in terms of end results, a breakup is possible, but by no means certain, from such legal action, according to antitrust experts I spoke with. Einer Elhauge, a Harvard law professor who was chairman of the antitrust advisory committee to the Obama campaign in 2008, told me that splitting WhatsApp and Instagram from Facebook — the most popular proposal — was plausible but might depend on how deeply integrated they had become. “It’s hard to unscramble eggs,” he said. And Facebook’s push to intertwine the platforms more closely may make such unscrambling only harder.

  • How Big a Problem Is It That a Few Shareholders Own Stock in So Many Competing Companies?

    February 19, 2019

    Many critics claim that anti-trust enforcement has dangerously weakened since the 1980s, often citing the dominance of the tech giants as evidence of this. They argue that any benefit gained from Google’s free services or Amazon’s low prices is outweighed by their chokehold on suppliers, their possession of mountains of personal data, and more. Others have noted rising concentration outside of tech: two-thirds of U.S. industries became more concentrated between 1997 and 2012. ...Horizontal shareholding therefore hurts competition because, as Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School has argued, it reduces “each individual firm’s incentives to cut prices or expand output by increasing the costs [to shareholders, and thus managers] of taking away sales from rivals.” These issues are easy to imagine with direct investors (such as activist hedge funds) who typically have more concentrated holdings and thus greater ability to influence practices within a company or industry.

  • Yes, Kamala Harris is eligible to run for president

    January 23, 2019

    California Sen. Kamala Harris had barely become a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination before birther accusations started on Twitter. Harris announced her candidacy on Jan. 21. The following morning, Jacob Wohl -- a self-described Trump supporter who has been described by media outlets as a "far-right conspiracy theorist" -- questioned whether Harris was eligible to run. ..."If you are born in the U.S, you are automatically a natural-born U.S. citizen under the constitution," said Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge.

  • Common ownership of shares faces regulatory scrutiny

    January 22, 2019

    Global regulators are starting to home in on an academic theory on the drawbacks of overlapping corporate ownership by investors, a trend that could pose a threat to the $80tn asset management industry. The theory is known as “common ownership”, which refers to shareholders, or owners, holding shares in competing companies within the same sector. According to the argument, managers of companies have fewer incentives to invest in new products or services, or to try to lure customers from rivals, if they know that big owners of their shares also have big stakes in their rivals. In other words, common ownership hurts competition. ... Under current US antitrust laws, common ownership would need proven anti-competitive effects in order for it to be considered illegal. Professor Einer Elhauge of Harvard Law School argues in a recent paper that the anti-competitive effects of horizontal shareholding, as he calls it, have been empirically confirmed, and that it is in fact illegal under US and EU antitrust laws.

  • Do Institutional Investors Suppress Competition? (subscription)

    September 18, 2018

    Can institutional investing have anticompetitive effects?...Disagreeing was panelist Einer Elhauge, a Harvard Law School professor who supports the idea that common ownership, sometimes referred to as...

  • New Evidence and Legal Theories About Horizontal Shareholding

    February 14, 2018

    An article by Einer Elhauge. When the leading shareholders of horizontal competitors overlap, horizontal shareholding exists. In my initial Harvard Law Review article on horizontal shareholding, I showed that economic theory and two intra-industry studies indicated that high levels of horizontal shareholding in concentrated product markets can have anticompetitive effects, even when each individual horizontal shareholder has a minority stake...In a new article, I show that new proofs and new empirical evidence strongly confirm my economic claims.

  • Elhauge to receive the Jerry S. Cohen Award for Antitrust Scholarship

    June 2, 2017

    Harvard Law School Professor Einer Elhauge ’86 will receive the prestigious Jerry S. Cohen Award for Antitrust Scholarship from the American Anititrust Institute at their annual conference on June 21.

  • The Affordable Care Act: Past, Present and Future with William Schultz

    April 25, 2017

    On March 23, William B. Schultz, former general counsel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2011-2016), discussed the complicated politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act and possible policy options for the next phase of the law’s evolution.

  • Voting rights, big money and Citizens United: Scholars explore issues in election law

    Voting rights, big money and Citizens United: Scholars explore issues in election law

    September 15, 2016

    With the U.S. presidential election weeks away, Harvard Law Today offers a look back at what scholars from campus and beyond had to say in recent months about democracy's challenges in a series of talks on Election Law.

  • The down view of index funds

    September 6, 2016

    ...Index funds are guided not by the wizardly stock-pickers of old but by number crunchers who buy lists of representative securities and hold them, rise or fall. They have cut costs and boosted profits for large and small investors. But U.S. and European professors scrutinizing the impact of the Big Three index-fund purveyors - BlackRock Inc., Vanguard Group, and State Street Corp. - say they see, in the triumph of indexing, not just a cheap way for investors to squeeze profits but also threats to capitalism as we know it...Joint control over major companies by few large U.S. investment managers "can help explain fundamental economic puzzles, including why corporate executives are rewarded for industry performance" instead of just their own, "why corporations have not used recent high profits to expand output and employment, and why economic inequality has risen," writes Einer Elhauge, professor at Harvard Law School, in an essay on "Horizontal Shareholding" in the Harvard Law Review that cites Azar's work at length.

  • Horizontal Shareholding, Antitrust, Growth and Inequality

    July 4, 2016

    Corporate profits are at record highs, economic growth is low, formation of new companies has been low for years, and inequality is close to Gilded Age levels. Professor Einer Elhauge from Harvard Law School believes that all these phenomena can at least partly be explained by a common problem. To prove his point he combines very recent empirical and theoretical economics literature that has been gaining attention in the last few years with some insight into regulatory activities that go back more than 70 years.

  • Petrie-Flom, 10 years on: Celebrating the future of health law and policy

    April 14, 2016

    On March 29, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School celebrated its first decade and kicked off the next with a conference that focused on the future of health law and policy.

  • Is Passive Investment Actively Hurting the Economy?

    March 9, 2016

    If you have so much as tiptoed into the arena of personal finance over the past few decades, you will have heard about the virtues of passive investing. ...In a discussion paper written last year, Einer Elhauge, a law professor at Harvard University, found that index-fund ownership was having a similar effect in the airline industry, where nearly eighty per cent of all stocks are owned by a handful of investors. Elhauge argues that institutional investors with an emphasis on index funds, such as Vanguard and Fidelity, are playing an outsized role in the sector, and that their rapid adoption is accelerating ownership concentration, resulting in higher prices for travellers. “Alone, index funds are not enough, but they are growing like gangbusters,” he explained in an interview.

  • Donald Trump: The Protector

    March 2, 2016

    An op-ed by Einer Elhauge. Like many people, I have been wondering: What on Earth explains Donald Trump’s remarkable appeal to voters? I’ve come to the conclusion that the answer is fairly simple. The message of his Republican opponents has effectively been: We are more faithful to conservative principles. Trump’s message has been entirely different. He essentially says: I will protect you. I’m conservative, but if protecting you requires jettisoning conservative ideology, I will do so. Protecting you is the prime directive. This message has powerful resonance, especially for voters who feel the Republican Party has failed to protect their interests.

  • Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution

    January 20, 2016

    An op-ed by Einer Elhauge. The argument that Ted Cruz is eligible to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. But closer examination shows it is surprisingly weak. The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law.

  • Experts compare Duke lawsuit to other antitrust cases

    November 18, 2015

    Experts are uncertain how antitrust law will be applied to the antitrust case involving Duke’s alleged no-poaching agreement for medical faculty. Seaman v. Duke University, et al. is a class action lawsuit filed by Dr. Danielle Seaman, assistant professor of radiology, on behalf of all similarly situated medical faculty at Duke and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 2012. Filed June 9, the suit alleges that Duke and UNC entered into an agreement not to hire each other’s staff for parallel positions—an agreement that violates antitrust laws...“There have been many [antitrust cases involving educational institutions], particularly concerning agreements restraining the commercial activities of college sports programs,” wrote Einer Elhauge, a law professor at Harvard Law School, in an email. Elhauge referred to two cases in particular: NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma—a 1984 Supreme Court case challenging the NCAA’s limitation on the number of television broadcasts permitted for each university—and Law v. NCAA—a 1998 U.S. Court of Appeals case challenging a salary cap for college coaches. Both decisions deemed the NCAA to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

  • U.S. Looks at Airline Investors for Evidence of Fare Collusion

    September 22, 2015

    U.S. antitrust officials investigating whether the nation’s four largest airlines colluded on pricing are looking at executives’ communications -- not only with each other, but also with their biggest shareholders...Another paper on the topic is also getting a close read at the Justice Department, according to a person familiar with the matter. That target, by Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge, argues that investor ownership of competitors across an industry can be challenged as anticompetitive even if overt coordination isn’t involved.

  • Big Funds: Do They Hurt Your Wallet?

    July 27, 2015

    If it seems like your airplane tickets cost too much this summer or your bank is overcharging you at the ATM, you might think about blaming your mutual fund. That is the startling—or maybe head-scratching—contention of some recent research that argues the top money-management companies have grown so large that they are indirectly stifling competition in other areas of the economy. In a paper posted online earlier this month, Einer Elhauge, a professor at Harvard Law School, asserts that concentrated shareholdings by such giant fund managers as BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, State Street and Vanguard Group “are likely to anticompetitively raise prices when the owned businesses compete in a concentrated market.”

  • Index funds may be conspiring against the very same investors who fund them

    July 27, 2015

    Normally, you’d think your 401k is a force for good. You put money in, let your nest egg grow, and draw it down when it comes time to retire. But Harvard Law professor Einer Elhauge argues that the mutual funds that make up your 401k, along with everyone else’s, have become so immense that they have created a perverse anti-competitive incentive: to keep prices high in industries like airlines and banks, thereby hurting you, the consumer.

  • Supreme Court Will Likely Uphold Affordable Care Act, Law Profs Say

    March 9, 2015

    Last week’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell suggest that the United States Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act, according to several Harvard Law School professors...“I would say for people who hoped that the Court would permit the subsidies to be paid, it was a very encouraging oral argument,” said Richard H. Fallon, a law school professor...In particular, professors said Kennedy’s line of questioning suggests that he could vote to uphold the ACA. Einer R. Elhauge, a professor at the Law School, said it seemed “very likely” that Kennedy would vote to uphold the law as it exists now, providing the required fifth vote...Noah R. Feldman ’92, another professor at the Law School, also identified Kennedy as a potential vote in favor of the Obama Administration. “The clear news was that Justice Kennedy is thinking seriously about a problem with the challengers’ interpretation,” he said...For his part, University Professor Laurence H. Tribe ’62 predicted a 6-3 decision in favor of upholding the ACA.

  • Obamacare, back on trial: Elhauge on new challenges to the ACA

    November 14, 2014

    In a move that caught many observers off guard, the U.S. Supreme Court last week announced it would review one of four cases currently challenging provisions

  • Obamacare’s next fight for survival

    November 14, 2014

    Obamacare -- the law that refuses to die -- is suddenly under attack again...Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge says some states, to protect themselves against possible health care chaos, might finally decide to set up their own arrangements or partner with the federal exchange. "The prospect of that disruption is sufficiently problematic that I would not be surprised to see a lot of states adopt exchanges," said Elhauge, who authored a book on the original Obamacare Supreme Court case.

  • Obamacare, back on trial

    November 13, 2014

    In a move that caught many observers off guard, the U.S. Supreme Court last week announced it would review one of four cases currently challenging provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)...Einer Elhauge, the Carroll and Milton Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, writes frequently about U.S. health care law and is the author of the 2012 book “Obamacare on Trial.” He talked to the Gazette via email about the court’s decision to take up this case, what is at issue, and implications for the ACA should the court rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

  • College application process violates antitrust law: new suit

    May 13, 2014

    …These days, just about every kid applying to a selective college — one that judges applicants on more than just grades and test scores — is doing it through Common App. Is that a violation of the Sherman Act? One of Common App’s for-profit competitors claims it is. In a new antitrust complaint, filed Thursday in federal court in Portland, Oregon, CollegeNET alleges that over the last 10 years, Common App has stealthily changed its agreements with member colleges to impede competition from other application processing companies...I was curious about whether for-profit companies can sue non-profits for Sherman Act violations, so I checked in with Harvard Law School antitrust professor Einer Elhauge, who said that they can indeed.

  • Hearsay: Short takes from faculty op-eds on business and finance

    July 2, 2013

    “The Compensation Game” Professor Lucian Bebchuk LL.M. ’80 S.J.D. ’84 and Rakesh Khurana, professor at Harvard Business School Forbes India April 8, 2013 “Reports about the high pay of star athletes are often greeted with awe and approval rather than outrage. The rise of executive pay, its defenders claim, is no more problematic than the fact that, say, Red Sox slugger Manny Ramirez is paid much more than earlier stars like Ted Williams.

  • Professor Elhauge with MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber

    P/Review of Health Law at Petrie-Flom Center (video)

    March 18, 2013

    The past year was a historic one for health law, with the Supreme Court issuing the final word on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act alongside a host of other critical developments. In February, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, in partnership with the New England Journal of Medicine, held its first annual Health Law Year in P/Review event.

  • Professor Robert Mnookin LL.B. '68

    In the news: HLS faculty weigh in on the ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations

    January 7, 2013

    In recent weeks, a number of HLS faculty have weighed in on issues surrounding the fiscal cliff negotiations.

  • Book Jacket

    Recent Faculty Books – Fall 2012

    October 1, 2012

    Professor Einer Elhauge ’86 is author of the e-book “Obamacare On Trial” (Edward Elgar), focused on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act case decided by the Supreme Court in June. Elhauge raises points that were not aired in the courtroom, including the fact that the constitutional framers themselves had approved mandates to buy health insurance.

  • HLS Professor Einer Elhauge '86

    Elhauge releases e-book on Obamacare

    September 12, 2012

    Professor Einer Elhauge ‘86 has released an e-book—titled “Obamacare on Trial” —on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act case decided by the Supreme Court. Elhauge raises points that were not aired in the courtroom, including the fact that the constitutional framers themselves had approved mandates to buy health insurance.

  • Harvard Law School Media Roundup: From Gun Control to the Roberts’s Court to the Arab Spring

    July 26, 2012

    Over the past week, a number of HLS faculty members shared their viewpoints on events in the news. Here are some excerpts.

  • HLS Thinks Big

    Five ideas in 50 minutes: HLS Thinks Big (video)

    July 9, 2012

    “HLS Thinks Big,” inspired by the global TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) talks and modeled after the college’s “Harvard Thinks Big” event, was held at Harvard Law School on May 23 in Austin North. During the event, five professors presented some of their favorite topics.

  • Recent Faculty Books – Summer 2012

    July 1, 2012

    “After Sex? On Writing Since Queer Theory” (Duke), edited by Professor Janet Halley and Andrew Parker. Contributors to the development of queer studies offer personal reflections on the potential and limitations of the field, asking to what extent it is defined by a focus on sex and sexuality.

  • HLS Professor Einer Elhauge '86

    Elhauge discusses the argument against individual healthcare mandate

    April 24, 2012

    In an April 16 article entitled “It’s Not About Broccoli: The False Case Against Health Care” published in The Atlantic, Professor Einer Elhauge ’86 tackles the primary case made against President Obama’s [’91] individual health care mandate.

  • The Supreme Court

    Healthcare Roundup: HLS reflects on Supreme Court oral arguments

    March 27, 2012

    The Supreme Court opened its review of the national health-care overhaul on Mar. 26, the first of three days of oral arguments on the 2010 law. In light of the historic arguments, law schools professors at HLS and elsewhere in the Boston area have incorporated the debate into their classrooms, and, In the media, HLS Professors I. Glenn Cohen. Einer Elhauge, Noah Feldman, Charles Fried and Laurence Tribe weighed in on the case.

  • HLS Professor Einer Elhauge '86

    Elhauge in NEJM: ‘Broccoli Argument’ is irrelevant against insurance mandate

    December 22, 2011

    HLS Professor Einer Elhauge ’86, the founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, wrote “The Irrelevance of the Broccoli Argument against the Insurance Mandate,” which was published online Dec. 21 by the New England Journal of Medicine.

  • HLS Professors Einer Elhauge and Laurence Tribe

    Health care reform: HLS faculty and alumni weigh in (video)

    November 16, 2011

    On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges to the constitutionality of the Health Care Law. In an op-ed and a debate this past week, two HLS faculty members (Professors Einer Elhauge '86 and Laurence Tribe '66) and a prominent alumnus (former Solicitor General Paul Clement '92) shared their opinions on the mandate's constitutionality.

  • A Prescription for health law: Conferences, research and university-wide collaboration

    July 1, 2011

    There is no shortage of attorneys involved in legal issues related to the pharmaceutical and health care industries. There is, however, a shortage of law schools examining those issues. Since its founding, the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics has aimed to rectify that problem.

  • Recent Faculty Books – Summer 2010

    July 1, 2010

    Professor Charles Ogletree Jr. ’78 uses this incident as a lens through which to explore issues of race and class, with the goal of creating a more just legal system for all.