Faculty Bibliography

Does Congress have authority to pass legislation regulating the counting of electoral votes? This is a consequential question for the legal framework governing presidential elections. In 2022, Congress passed the Electoral Count Reform Act ("ECRA"), which overhauled the statutory regime governing the counting of electoral votes. The ECRA's predecessor statute, which had been in place since 1887, had long been criticized as ambiguous and unnecessarily convoluted. Those deficiencies were widely seen as a contributing cause of the attacks on the Capitol of January 6, 2021, and a rare bipartisan majority in Congress passed the ECRA to address the earlier statute's shortcomings. Yet it did so against a backdrop of unresolved questions about Congress's authority to legislate in this area. The scholarly literature, however, lacks a sustained defense of Congress's power to regulate the counting of electoral votes. This Article aims to fill that gap. It does so in two ways. First, it engages with the skeptics of Congress's authority on their traditional terrain, locating ample congressional authority grounded in the text, structure, and history of Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. The Article then seeks to expand the analytic framework by focusing on a constitutional provision that tends to stay out of the limelight: the Twentieth Amendment, which reconfigures the period between Election Day and Inauguration Day. In defending Congress's authority to pass laws regulating the counting of electoral votes, this Article provides the first scholarly treatment of the Twentieth Amendment's significance in this area.

Congress passed a law to clarify the electoral vote-counting process and prevent the next Jan. 6. It was well within its power to do so.

Dropout often threatens the validity of causal inference in longitudinal studies. While existing studies have focused on the problem of missing outcomes caused by treatment, we study an important but overlooked source of dropout, selective eligibility. For example, patients may become ineligible for subsequent treatments due to severe side effects or complete recovery. Selective eligibility differs from the problem of ``truncation by death'' because dropout occurs after observing the outcome but before receiving the subsequent treatment. This difference makes the standard approach to dropout inapplicable. We propose a general methodological framework for longitudinal causal inference with selective eligibility. By focusing on subgroups of units who would become eligible for treatment given a specific treatment history, we define the time-specific eligible treatment effect (ETE) and expected number of outcome events (EOE) under a treatment sequence of interest. Assuming a generalized version of sequential ignorability, we derive two nonparametric identification formulae, each leveraging different parts of the observed data distribution. We then derive the efficient influence function of each causal estimand, yielding the corresponding doubly robust estimator. Finally, we apply the proposed methodology to an impact evaluation of a pre-trial risk assessment instrument in the criminal justice system, in which selective eligibility arises due to recidivism.

This Viewpoint explores the various types of state laws establishing fetal personhood and the potential implications of these laws on health care, patients, and clinicians.

It has become common to view credit as problematic for present-biased consumers, who are tempted to incur too much debt because of its deferred costs. But while this view is generally valid when debt is used to finance current consumption, the picture becomes much more nuanced when credit is used to fund the purchase of durable goods—such as houses, cars, and education—which is the most common use of consumer credit. When bundled with the purchase of a durable good, the deferred cost feature of credit can be a feature, not a bug. The reason is that durable goods provide deferred benefits that are also undervalued by present-biased consumers. Moreover, people often need to save in advance to finance the purchase of a durable good, and present-bias makes it difficult to save. As a result, people with present bias tend to underconsume durable goods. We show that the deferred costs of purchase debt can offset these barriers to buying durable goods and make the present-biased consumer better off both by tempting her to buy something that she should—but would not otherwise—buy and by making it easier to save up for the purchase.

Researchers and practitioners are increasingly using machine‐generated synthetic data as a tool for advancing health science and practice, by expanding access to health data while—potentially—mitigating privacy and related ethical concerns around data sharing. While using synthetic data in this way holds promise, we argue that it also raises significant ethical, legal, and policy concerns, including persistent privacy and security problems, accuracy and reliability issues, worries about fairness and bias, and new regulatory challenges. The virtue of synthetic data is often understood to be its detachment from the data subjects whose measurement data is used to generate it. However, we argue that addressing the ethical issues synthetic data raises might require bringing data subjects back into the picture, finding ways that researchers and data subjects can be more meaningfully engaged in the construction and evaluation of datasets and in the creation of institutional safeguards that promote responsible use.

In the current era, product differentiation is increasing; it is often fueled by big data and artificial intelligence (AI). Whereas product differentiation is generally welfare enhancing when consumers are informed and fully rational, such differentiation might reduce welfare when consumers suffer from misperceptions, either because of a lack of information or because of behavioral biases. We show that the positive and normative implications of product differentiation depend on whether consumers over-or underestimate the benefits from some products. In particular, over-estimation of the benefits is a potential source of significant welfare losses. We also study sellers' incentives to promote, or combat, misperception. Our analysis can inform policymakers who are debating regulation that can make product differentiation more difficult (or easier), especially when the differentiation is instigated by AI algorithms powered by big data.

Medical devices diagnose disease, prolong life, and improve health. But when defective, they can injure, disable, and kill. To successfully sue manufacturers for injuries caused by medical devices, patients must overcome the defense that federal law preempts, or displaces, state law claims. The Supreme Court has provided a framework for answering this question with respect to most devices. However, it has never confronted how it would apply the framework to an innovative but growing class of devices—de novo devices—that may incorporate novel technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning. This Essay tries to answer this question as a predictive and normative matter. From a predictive perspective, the Essay argues that the Court’s increasingly textualist orientation suggests it will reject preemption of claims against manufacturers of de novo devices, though the result is not certain. From a normative perspective, the Essay argues that allowing claims against de novo device manufacturers forces risk internalization, provides a regulatory failsafe for innovative technology, and preserves innovation without sacrificing patient health.

Madiba K. Dennie argues that “originalism deliberately entombs historically marginalized groups’ legal claims to liberation.”

The federal judge’s ruling in the Trump document case is a travesty.

The anxiety about distinguishing a President from a king, which framed this Court term, is inextricably intertwined with the end-of-democracy theme of the 2024 Presidential race.

Court’s troubling rulings on presidential immunity and regulatory power make it clear that change is an ethical essential.

If Joe Biden doesn’t willingly resign, there’s another solution, which would allow Democrats to unite around a new incumbent.

We show that intergenerational mobility changed rapidly by race and class in recent decades and use these trends to study the causal mechanisms underlying changes in economic mobility. For white children in the U.S. born between 1978 and 1992, earnings increased for children from high-income families but decreased for children from low-income families, increasing earnings gaps by parental income (“class”) by 30%. Earnings increased for Black children at all parental income levels, reducing white- Black earnings gaps for children from low-income families by 30%. Class gaps grew and race gaps shrank similarly for non-monetary outcomes such as educational attainment, standardized test scores, and mortality rates. Using a quasi-experimental design, we show that the divergent trends in economic mobility were caused by differential changes in childhood environments, as proxied by parental employment rates, within local communities defined by race, class, and childhood county. Outcomes improve across birth cohorts for children who grow up in communities with increasing parental employment rates, with larger effects for children who move to such communities at younger ages. Children’s outcomes are most strongly related to the parental employment rates of peers they are more likely to interact with, such as those in their own birth cohort, suggesting that the relationship between children’s outcomes and parental employment rates is mediated by social interaction. Our findings imply that community-level changes in one generation can propagate to the next generation and thereby generate rapid changes in economic mobility.

An analysis of two different knowledge institutions that serve democracies.

The Research Handbook on Health, AI and the Law explores the use of AI in healthcare, identifying the important laws and ethical issues that arise from its use. Adopting an international approach, it analyses the varying responses of multiple jurisdictions to the use of AI and examines the influence of major religious and secular ethical traditions.

Efforts to prosecute them constitute election interference.

This book is a primer on corporate law for law students and anyone else desiring a first course in corporate law. The book provides a self-contained, accessible 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 alternative entities including partnerships; optional background chapters cover the investor eco-system, 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.

Kicking the emergency abortion issue down the road as a national election looms is convenient for the court’s reactionary majority.

Congressional hearings and public reports have drawn attention to problems afflicting Medicare Advantage (MA), the privatized version of Medicare. Private plans became a staple of Medicare through the passage of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). Congress passed this law during a furor of privatization, when think tanks and powerful financial interests emphasized the power of corporations’ profit incentive to improve the efficiency and quality of social enterprise. Yet the surging criticism of MA suggests a misalignment between the financial interest of some MA plans and the well-being of their patient populations. The criticisms range from deceptive marketing, ghost networks, and patient cherry-picking to unethical prior authorization denials and defrauding the government. In total, MA plans cost the federal government 22% more per patient than if these patients in question were enrolled in traditional Medicare. Moreover, it is not clear that this additional funding is producing proportional benefits. These developments raise questions about the presence of a profit incentive in Medicare, and perhaps health care more broadly.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene might like it, but no one else should take this idea as anything other than what it appears to be — a political ploy with serious negative ripple effects.

In this Viewpoint, the authors refute recent suggestions that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not accountable for its decisions, pointing out the legal, legislative, and executive checks and balances on the agency.

This is about a lot more than one university's disciplinary action.

Women’s Health Research, barely 40-year-old in the United States has recently received an all-important boost from First Lady Jill Biden. The $100 million in question are bound to make a meaningful difference in this all-important arena. It was the view of the White House that “our nation must fundamentally change how we approach and fund women’s health research.” The White House expressed its hope that “congressional leaders, the private sector, research institutions, and philanthropy” will answer the call to “improve the health and lives of women throughout the nation.”

Importance: As government agencies around the globe contemplate approval of the first psychedelic medicines, many questions remain about their ethical integration into mainstream medical practice. Objective: To identify key ethics and policy issues related to the eventual integration of psychedelic therapies into clinical practice. Evidence Review: From June 9 to 12, 2023, 27 individuals representing the perspectives of clinicians, researchers, Indigenous groups, industry, philanthropy, veterans, retreat facilitators, training programs, and bioethicists convened at the Banbury Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Prior to the meeting, attendees submitted key ethics and policy issues for psychedelic medicine. Responses were categorized into 6 broad topics: research ethics issues; managing expectations and informed consent; therapeutic ethics; training, education, and licensure of practitioners; equity and access; and appropriate role of gatekeeping. Attendees with relevant expertise presented on each topic, followed by group discussion. Meeting organizers (A.L.M., I.G.C., D.S.) drafted a summary of the discussion and recommendations, noting points of consensus and disagreement, which were discussed and revised as a group. Findings: This consensus statement reports 20 points of consensus across 5 ethical issues (reparations and reciprocity, equity, and respect; informed consent; professional boundaries and physical touch; personal experience; and gatekeeping), with corresponding relevant actors who will be responsible for implementation. Areas for further research and deliberation are also identified. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement focuses on the future of government-approved medical use of psychedelic medicines in the US and abroad. This is an incredibly exciting and hopeful moment, but it is critical that policymakers take seriously the challenges ahead.

For years, universities have been less inclined to protect speech and quicker to sanction it. After this spring’s protests, it will be difficult to turn back.

Some of the Supreme Court Justices and scholars who support a reinvigoration of the nondelegation doctrine would allow for an exception for grants of authority relating to foreign affairs. Others have criticized such an exception as unprincipled or as reflecting improper “foreign affairs exceptionalism.” This Article argues against a foreign affairs exception to the nondelegation doctrine but contends that the doctrine should be applied less strictly when a statutory authorization relates to an area of independent presidential power. The President has more independent power relating to foreign affairs than domestic affairs, so this limitation on the nondelegation doctrine will do more work in the foreign affairs area. But the President does not have unlimited power over foreign affairs and has some independent constitutional power relating to domestic affairs, so it is inaccurate and potentially misleading to refer to a “foreign affairs” exception. After establishing this point, the Article identifies three circumstances in which independent presidential power reduces nondelegation concerns, which we call “redundant authorizations,” “unlocking authorizations,” and “independent discretion authorizations.” The Article then analyzes a number of broad statutory authorizations relating to foreign affairs and domestic security and finds that some but not all of them can be justified by reference to the President’s independent powers. The Article concludes by considering the relevance of this analysis to the application of the major questions doctrine, and it explains why that doctrine likely poses less of a threat to authorizations related to foreign affairs than scholars have maintained.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section One is central to our constitutional law. Yet its underlying principles remain surprisingly obscure. Its drafting history seems filled with contradictions, and there is no scholarly consensus on what rights it protects, or even on what kind of law defines those rights. This Article presents a new lens through which to read the Fourteenth Amendment—new to modern lawyers, but not to the Amendment’s drafters. That lens is general law, the unwritten law that was taken to be common throughout the nation rather than produced by any particular state. Though later disparaged in the era of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, general law was legal orthodoxy when the Amendment was written. To those who created the Fourteenth Amendment, general law supplied the fundamental rights that Section One secured. On this view, while Section One identified the citizens of the United States, it did not confer new rights of citizenship. Instead, it secured preexisting rights—rights already thought to circumscribe state power—by partially shifting their enforcement and protection from state courts and legislatures to federal courts and Congress. This general-law understanding makes more sense of the historical record than existing theories, which consider the Fourteenth Amendment solely in terms of federal or state law. And it has significant implications for modern Fourteenth Amendment doctrine, from state action to civic equality to “incorporation” to “substantive due process.”

Nuisance is once again a hot topic in legal practice and scholarship. Public nuisance law is at the center of efforts to hold product manufacturers, energy companies, and internet platforms liable for billions in losses. Scholars have in turn offered competing accounts of the legitimacy and scope of this form of liability. Meanwhile, private nuisance has been the subject of renewed academic attention, including the issuance of new Restatement provisions, that aim to make sense of its distinctive features. Unfortunately, to date, these two lines of inquiry have mostly been pursued in isolation, a pattern that reflects the prevailing wisdom (famously articulated by William Prosser and others) that the two nuisances share nothing beyond a common name. To the contrary, this Article maintains that the key to practical and theoretical progress in this complex area of law is to appreciate that the two nuisances are variants of the same general concept. As variants, they do indeed differ: a private nuisance is a wrong involving the violation of another’s right to use and enjoy their property, whereas public nuisance in the first instance does not turn on the violation of private property rights. And yet both nuisances involve wrongful interferences with others’ access to, or use of, physical spaces or resources. By attending to and appreciating this common core, lawyers, judges, and scholars will be better positioned to develop nuisance law in a consistent and principled manner.

This article explores subjects in optimal income taxation characterized by recent research interest, practical importance in light of concerns about inequality, potential for misunderstanding, and prospects for advancement. Throughout the analysis, paths for further investigation are highlighted. Areas of focus include multidimensional abilities and endogenous wages; asymmetric information and the income of founders; production and consumption externalities from labor effort; market power and rents; behavioral phenomena relating to perceptions of the income tax schedule, myopic labor supply, and the interactions of savings, savings policies, and labor supply; optimal income transfers; the relationship between optimal income taxation and the use of other instruments; and issues relating to the social welfare function and utility functions, including non-welfarist objectives, welfare weights, heterogeneous preferences, and taxation of the family.