Ipse Dixit

Share

Chris Sagers on United States v. Apple & the Purpose of Antitrust Law

Season 1, Ep. 168

In this episode, Christopher L. Sagers, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, discusses his new book, "United States v. Apple: Competition in America," which will be published by Harvard University Press. The book uses the United States v. Apple antitrust case to investigate antitrust policy and whether it is consistent with how people think about competition. Sagers begins by discussing the purpose of antitrust law, how antitrust doctrine works, and how antitrust policy has evolved over time. Then he describes the factual background of the United States v. Apple case, and reflects on why it seemed like an easy case for antitrust scholars, and a hard case for so many other people. He concludes by asking what antitrust law should try to accomplish, and how it should reconcile consumer welfare with other values. Sagers is on Twitter at @chrissagers.

More Episodes

4/29/2022

Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable

Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted byBrian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at@brianlfrye.