Chicago's Best Ideas

Aziz Huq, “Hobby Lobby and the Psychology of Corporate Rights”

After the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions, a robust public debate has emerged over corporate constitutional rights. Prof. Huq discusses ongoing empirical research about how the Hobby Lobby case has influenced public perceptions not just of those rights, but also of the Court itself.

Participating faculty: 
Aziz Huq

Aziz Huq, “Hobby Lobby and the Psychology of Corporate Rights”

After the Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions, a robust public debate has emerged over corporate constitutional rights. Prof. Huq discusses ongoing empirical research about how the Hobby Lobby case has influenced public perceptions not just of those rights, but also of the Court itself.

Richard A. Epstein, “Reasonable and Unreasonable Expectations in Property Law and Beyond”

The notion of reasonable expectations filters in and out of many given areas of law. It is often derided as circular claim in which reasonable expectations are shaped by the law that they are supposed to shape. On the other hand, it is often treated, most notably under the Supreme Court’s now pivotal decision in Penn Central Transportation Co v.

Participating faculty: 
Richard A. Epstein

Richard A. Epstein, “Reasonable and Unreasonable Expectations in Property Law and Beyond”

Reasonable expectations can never be banned from the law, but they must be domesticated, where their primary role is to facilitate cooperation between people who otherwise are unable to coordinate their social behaviors.

Alison Siegler, “The Courts of Appeals’ Latest Sentencing Rebellion”

For over twenty-five years, federal courts of appeals have rebelled against every Supreme Court mandate that weakens the federal sentencing Guidelines. That rebellion has intensified since the Court dealt a blow to the Guidelines a decade ago by making them advisory, rather than mandatory.

Participating faculty: 
Alison Siegler

Alison Siegler, “The Courts of Appeals’ Latest Sentencing Rebellion”

For over twenty-five years, federal courts of appeals have rebelled against every Supreme Court mandate that weakens the federal sentencing Guidelines.

Alison LaCroix, "The Shadow Powers of Article I"

The Supreme Court's federalism battleground has recently shifted from the Commerce Clause to two textually marginal but substantively important domains: the Necessary and Proper Clause and, to a lesser extent, the General Welfare Clause. For nearly a decade, these quieter, more structurally ambiguous federal powers – the “shadow powers” – have steadily increased in prominence.

Participating faculty: 
Alison LaCroix

Alison LaCroix, "The Shadow Powers of Article I"

The growth of shadow powers analysis has tended to narrow the permissible scope of congressional regulatory power.

Omri Ben-Shahar, "The Unintended Effects of Access Justice Laws"

Access Justice laws give people equal opportunity to enjoy primary goods, ensuring that access to these goods is not allocated by markets and is not tilted in favor of wealth and privilege.

Participating faculty: 
Omri Ben-Shahar

Omri Ben-Shahar, "The Unintended Effects of Access Justice Laws"

In this lecture, Professor Ben-Shahar explains why Access Justice law can unintentionally hurt weak groups in a variety of areas — access to courts, information, insurance, internet, and many more.