Media Mentions

An op-ed by Cass Sunstein. Whether something seems bad, unethical or horrifying depends on what else is happening out there. That helps explain why we often fail to appreciate amazing social progress — and why we can miss it when things are falling apart. To understand these points, consider a stunning new paper by a team of psychologists, led by David Levari of Harvard University. Their central idea has an unlovely name: “prevalence-induced concept change.” Their findings, based on a series of experiments, are profoundly reassuring in some respects, but also ominous in light of current political developments in the U.S. and elsewhere.

An op-ed by Noah Feldman. Rudy Giuliani can’t seem to get the law right. The president’s lawyer suggested Monday on CNN and Fox News that Donald Trump didn’t commit a crime even if he colluded with Russians during the 2016 campaign by encouraging them to hack Hillary Clinton’s email server. “I don't even know if that’s a crime, colluding about Russians,” Giuliani put it. “You start analyzing the crime – the hacking is the crime. The president didn't hack. He didn’t pay them for hacking." That's just wrong.

By Joshua A. Geltzer and Matthew G. Olsen. These days, it takes little imagination — none at all, in fact — to conceive of a hostile foreign actor hungry for detailed information about millions of U.S. voters and determined to undermine Americans’ confidence in their democratic institutions. What does require just a bit of vision is recognizing that there is a fast-approaching opportunity for such actors to advance their agendas: the upcoming census. That’s because the 2020 Census will be the first electronic census in U.S. history. Going digital will enable the process to become cheaper and more inclusive — both good things. But it also provides the opportunity for bad actors to exploit any cybersecurity vulnerabilities that this digitized approach might generate.

...The moves against China are part of Mr. Trump’s wider effort to upend longstanding U.S. policy on trade and also the international institutions and agreements that govern trade. Whether the administration’s shift is a much-needed corrective or a disastrous reversal depends in large part on how one views the original decision to bring China into the international trade regime...Greater economic growth led to greater political control, said Mark Wu, a professor at Harvard Law School whose research focuses on China and the WTO. China’s leaders believed that they needed unchallenged authority to carry out economic reform in the face of opposition from entrenched interests. According to Mr. Wu, the point of freer markets, in their view, was to encourage competition and prevent the system from becoming sclerotic, not to bolster individual rights.

To prove that Mr. Manafort defrauded banks, prosecutors need to show he deliberately lied about financial facts, said Nancy Gertner, a former United States District Judge and a professor at Harvard Law School.

The Trump administration has drafted a plan to freeze fuel-efficiency standards for the nation’s cars and light trucks, reversing the Obama-era push for cleaner vehicles and marking one of President Trump’s most significant regulatory rollbacks to date. As part of the far-reaching proposal expected to be released this week, the White House will also attempt to revoke California’s ability to set stricter tailpipe standards than those of the federal government...“It’s had a transformational impact,” said Jody Freeman, an expert in environmental law and a professor at Harvard Law School. “It was directly responsible for many advancements that make cars better, stronger and more efficient.”

...With the retirement of the Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who often served as a swing vote on the court, Mr. Trump has nominated a judge to succeed him, Brett Kavanaugh, who is considered more reliably conservative. “They may well feel emboldened by the fact that Kennedy is retired, and they will likely see more conservative justices,” said Jody Freeman, a professor of environmental law at Harvard and a former adviser to President Barack Obama. However, Ms. Freeman noted that previous efforts to pre-empt such state-level authority have failed, a fact that also concerns Mr. Wheeler, according to people familiar with his thinking. “We’ve never seen a state-level waiver being revoked, and it’s not clear how that would work,” Ms. Freeman said.

There’s trouble in Trumpland, and California is caught in the middle..Revoking the waiver “would be unprecedented,” says Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor. “There have been dozens of waivers that California has gotten over the decades since the 1970s, and [the EPA] has never revoked one.”

Contemporary liberalism holds itself aloof from the deeper sources of human flourishing in religion, family, tradition, and culture and has become a fideistic dogma of choice and autonomy for their own sakes...The brilliant Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule tells us that liberalism is sacramental in character, and is a public ritual of overcoming superstition and bigotry in the name of reason and rationality. It needs a villain, someone to publicly condemn as a defeated enemy on its unending path to progress. Vermeule says liberalism needs enemies and voraciously — that is, rationally — searches for and destroys them. Liberalism’s gallows are always swinging.

A book review by Cass Sunstein. Liberal democracy has enjoyed much better days. Vladimir Putin has entrenched authoritarian rule and is firmly in charge of a resurgent Russia. In global influence, China may have surpassed the United States, and Chinese president Xi Jinping is now empowered to remain in office indefinitely. In light of recent turns toward authoritarianism in Turkey, Poland, Hungary, and the Philippines, there is widespread talk of a “democratic recession.” In the United States, President Donald Trump may not be sufficiently committed to constitutional principles of democratic government. In such a time, we might be tempted to try to learn something from earlier turns toward authoritarianism, particularly the triumphant rise of the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s.

The Post reports on the resolution introduced by 11 members of the House Freedom Caucus to impeach — yes, impeach — Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein...“It’s a PR stunt that nobody who knows anything about impeachment could take seriously,” says constitutional scholar Larry Tribe. “But it will do great harm anyway by contributing to the degradation of the impeachment power, making it harder to use when it is truly needed to rein in a would be-dictator.”

If substantiated, Michael Cohen’s new assertion—that Donald Trump knew in advance about a 2016 meeting at Trump Tower with Kremlin-connected individuals—would prove that the Trump campaign sought to aid a Russian-influence operation aimed at putting Trump in office. But Cohen’s word on its own is not enough to prove anything...“I think the implications are both political and legal,” said Alex Whiting, a law professor at Harvard and a former federal prosecutor. “Trump’s public denials that he knew about the meeting are not themselves criminal, even if he knew them to be false. But they could be part of a larger obstruction-of-justice case nonetheless. Mueller could allege that Trump’s false statements were part of an effort to orchestrate a false narrative that would be fed to investigators.”

...Norman Eisen, Laurence Tribe and Caroline Frederickson wrote in February: “Endeavoring to stop an investigation, if done with corrupt intent, may constitute obstruction of justice. Plotting to assist such action may be conspiracy to obstruct justice. Normally, what is called ‘speech or debate immunity would provide a strong bulwark against any such liability for Mr. Nunes or his staff.” However, they argued, “Mr. Nunes and company may have ranged so far afield that those protections no longer apply. Under the clause, mere peripheral connection to legislative acts cannot serve as a fig leaf to shield criminal conduct.” They argued that if “a member or staff employee of the House Intelligence Committee engaged with the White House to stifle the special counsel inquiry, it would be difficult to see how such collaboration would be” protected by the speech or debate clause.

...Indeed, markets often substantially overvalue the long term, argues Harvard law professor Mark Roe, as evidenced by the intermittent bubbles in technology and other industries...Roe argues the “doomsday version of the stock-market-driven short-termism argument” – firms forgoing the research and development they need and cutting back on capital expenditures so that they can instead support their stock price via expensive share buybacks – is not supported by evidence. Yes, buybacks have risen over the last decade, but companies did not do so by draining their cash reserves: they took advantage of historically low interest rates that allowed them to borrow [and buy back] nearly for free.

An op-ed by Jack Goldsmith. The July 25 resolution by 11 House Republicans introducing articles of impeachment against deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein is not a serious legal document. It is filled with embarrassing factual errors. Most notably, the fifth article charges Rosenstein with responsibility for the Justice Department’s supposed obfuscation of the Steele dossier’s origins as opposition research on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign: “Under Mr. Rosenstein’s supervision, Christopher Steele’s political opposition research was neither vetted before it was used in October 2016 nor fully revealed to the FISC.” The problem is that Rosenstein became deputy attorney general in April 2017, long after the Steele dossier was used in the Carter Page FISA application. He was not, and could not have been, responsible for the alleged obfuscation—an allegation that the recent release of the Carter Page application revealed is baseless.

...Directly above the nation's most important tribunal is another type of court, where victors emerge not with five votes and a majority opinion but with 21 points and a margin of at least two. Yes, on the fifth and top floor of the glorious, neoclassical edifice on First Street NE is a basketball court...For some, the haven of the Highest Court was never more welcome than when the justices adjudicated capital cases. On those evenings Noah Feldman, a clerk for Justice David Souter in 1998–99, would go upstairs, often alone, to shoot as he waited for documents, decompressing and considering the gravity of the moment. "It's impossible to overstate the seriousness of how that is taken by all the personnel of the Court, including the clerks. And rightly—a human being's life is in the balance," Feldman says. "Your cortisol is pounding, you want to do everything right and make sure justice is done. And when that was going on, you really needed a break."...On the fifth floor ideological differences dissipate; strict constructionists don't square off against living constitutionalists, nor do liberals take on conservatives for the right to Kennedy's (or, now that he's retiring, Roberts's) swing vote. "It was sort of a place where everyone took off their uniforms and you couldn't tell who was who," says Nikolas Bowie, who clerked for Justice Sonia Sotomayor in 2015–16. "You were just playing basketball."

A federal judge on Wednesday rejected President Trump’s latest effort to stop a lawsuit that alleges Trump is violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign governments. The ruling, from U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte in Greenbelt, Md., will allow the plaintiffs in the case — the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia — to proceed with their case, which says Trump has violated the Constitution’s little-used emoluments clause...Laurence Tribe, who along with Eisen has been making the emoluments argument in court and in the court of public opinion, says, “It’s an extremely significant ruling, the first federal judicial decision addressing — and endorsing — the theory we have been advancing on the Emoluments Clause ever since the start of the Trump administration.”

Trump administration officials were putting the finishing touches on a strategy to roll back car pollution standards when they received a boost from an unexpected source: the Supreme Court. The announced retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on the court, and the plan to replace him with a reliable conservative in Brett Kavanaugh, energized the regulators. They plan to go with the boldest option, including a challenge to California’s ability to set its own limits...Jody Freeman, a Harvard environmental law professor and an architect of the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency pact with California, said it’s not clear how Kavanaugh would view key legal questions around the fuel economy rollback. “I don’t think we have enough of a record on Kavanaugh’s views of state powers and federalism to be confident about how this particular challenge would come out,” she said.

U.S. companies are collecting record amounts of cash in their coffers, and many can’t think of anything better to do with it than buy back their stock. Here’s a better idea: Hand out some of those shares to rank-and-file employees...In practice, though, a sizable portion of the repurchased shares are reissued in the form of equity-based compensation, said Jesse Fried, a Harvard Law School professor who studies compensation and buybacks. Mr. Fried said shareholders may see aligning executive pay with stock performance as logical because senior leaders can do disproportionately more to affect a company’s performance. But giving out shares at the entry level where wages are set could be considered a handout. “Companies aren’t in the business of making charitable contributions with other people’s money,” he said.

An op-ed by Jesse M. Fried and Charles C.Y. Wang. There is a problem with share buybacks—but it isn’t the one many critics and legislators are obsessed with...The real problem is that buybacks, unlike dividends, can be used to systematically transfer value from shareholders to executives. Researchers have shown that executives opportunistically use repurchases to shrink the share count and thereby trigger earnings-per-share-based bonuses. Executives also use buybacks to create temporary additional demand for shares, nudging up the short-term stock price as executives unload equity. Finally, managers who know the stock is cheap use open-market repurchases to secretly buy back shares, boosting the value of their long-term equity. Although continuing public shareholders also profit from this indirect insider trading, selling public shareholders lose by a greater amount, reducing investor returns in aggregate.

Fifty years ago, James Brown, the "Godfather of Soul," released the iconic song, "Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud." It was released in August 1968, just four months after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor, said he remembers when he first heard the song. The funk- and soul-inspired hit was like nothing he had heard before — especially at a time in which Kennedy said overt "colorism," or the preference for lighter skin color, was prevalent in the black community.