Legal scholars view administrative law as alternately shaped by concerns for procedural formality and issues of political control, and therefore as consisting of largely conflicting rules. But they have overlooked that the Court may be elaborating administrative law, and more particularly, administrative procedures, for a particular political purpose—to ensure that agency action roughly tracks legislative preferences. Thus, rather than vacillating between procedures and politics, the Court may be striving to negotiate two sorts of politics: congressional control, exercised through administrative procedures, and presidential control, vindicated by presumptive judicial deference. Positive political theorists, meanwhile, have appreciated that administrative procedures can assist Congress in monitoring agencies. But they have not applied their theory to actual administrative law, and their assumptions about judicial behavior cannot predict such law. This Article combines the insights of legal scholars and positive political theorists to offer a better descriptive account and normative defense of the seminal administrative law cases.

Antitrust has played a major role in telecommunications policy, demonstrated most dramatically by the equal access mandate imposed during the breakup of AT&T. In this Article we explore the extent to which antitrust can continue to serve as a source of access mandates following the Supreme Court’s 2004 Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP decision.

Many current cultural disputes sound in the legal language and logic of discrimination or hate speech. The focus of this Essay is on the claims made explicitly or implicitly on the basis of cultural property. The problem with using ideas of cultural property to resolve cultural disputes is that cultural property encourages an anemic theory of culture so that it can make sense as a form of property. Cultural property is a paradox because it places special value and legal protection on cultural products and artifacts but does so based on a sanitized and domesticated view of cultural production and identity. Within the logic of cultural property, each group possesses and controls—or ought to control—its own culture. This view of cultural property suggests a preservationist stance toward culture. This Essay argues against both of these assumptions and for a view of culture that takes account of its dynamisms, appropriations, hybridizations, and contaminations.

ankruptcy is not the most common recourse for individuals deeply in debt; it is merely the most well known. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) in part to close state law exemption loopholes that allowed wealthy individuals, or “opportunistic debtors,” to declare bankruptcy and emerge with their debts discharged and their assets intact. Yet BAPCPA does not reach the more popular practice of informal bankruptcy, through which insolvent debtors avoid paying off their debts despite not filing for bankruptcy because creditors find it too costly to collect under state law. This Note proposes that courts close this informal bankruptcy loophole by relaxing the judicially created restrictions on involuntary bankruptcy, making it easier for creditors to force opportunistic debtors into formal bankruptcy.

This Note examines whether personal jurisdiction analysis should apply differently in cases against officials from other states (or “foreign state officials”). After reviewing the relevant doctrinal principles and case law, this Note concludes that there is room to address federalism concerns as part of the personal jurisdiction inquiry in federal cases.