The income tax taxes the proceeds from market work, but not the “proceeds” from time otherwise allocated—whether enjoyed as self-provided goods and services or leisure time. This Article uses data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics to measure the redistributive impact of the implicit exclusion for nonmarket activity. Viewing the exclusion as a kind of tax benefit, it asks: How is such tax benefit distributed across the income spectrum? The Article finds that variation across income levels in “the labor income realization ratio”—the portion of potential labor income that is realized as actual labor income—has played a decisive role in shaping the real progressivity of the federal income tax. On paper, the federal income tax became more progressive during the 1990s. When average tax rates are measured in terms of potential rather than actual income, however, the income tax shows a decline in progressivity during that decade.

Market damages are the best default rule when parties trade in thick markets: They induce parties to contract efficiently and to trade if and only if trade is efficient, and they do not create ex ante inefficiencies. Courts commonly overlook these virtues, however, when promisors bundle services that are not separately priced. When the cost of completion is large relative to the “market delta”—the increase in market value—courts concerned with avoiding “economic waste” limit the buyer to the market value increase. This concern is misguided. Since the buyer commonly prepays for the service, a cost-of-completion award actually has a restitution element—the prepaid price—and an expectation interest element—the market damages. Courts fail to see the restitution issue and thus deny these damages more frequently than they should.

Human rights treaties play an important role in international relations but they lack a foundation in moral philosophy and doubts have been raised about their effectiveness for constraining states. Drawing on ideas from the literature on economic development, this Essay argues that international concern should be focused on human welfare rather than on human rights because of three advantages.

Despite incredible technological advancements in diagnostics and treatment, medicine remains the last significant paper-based industry in the United States. In fits and starts, the American healthcare system is transitioning from paper charts to electronic records. The ultimate goal is a nationwide health information network that includes a comprehensive, interoperable electronic medical record for each patient. The effective use of health information technology (HIT) in physician offices, hospitals, and even patients’ homes promises to hold down rising healthcare costs and improve Americans’ health. Unfortunately, no overarching national strategy has emerged for designing and implementing such a system. Though federal officials increasingly promote the use of HIT, state efforts have driven most government progress. This dual-track regulatory strategy carries significant risks of interstate redundancy and incompatibility. This Note argues that a national policy of state experimentation would mitigate these risks and best exploit HIT’s considerable potential.

In recent years, noncitizens have begun to file more suits against U.S. officials, alleging torture and other violations of the law of nations. Although such claims against foreign officials may succeed on these grounds pursuant to the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), the Westfall Act bars these claims when made against U.S. officials by providing absolute immunity. An examination of the history of the Westfall Act, however, demonstrates that the Act was only meant to immunize federal employees for garden variety, state law torts. Torts of the kind cognizable under the ATCA were not intended or even foreseen to fall within the ambit of the Westfall Act’s immunity.