Rather than raising alarm bells, government uses of artificial intelligence fit well within existing legal frameworks.
President Trump’s “one-in, two-out” mandate is irrational and violates the Constitution.
The Trump Administration’s embrace of a seldom-used law may undermine future regulatory efforts.
Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings offer a key opportunity to examine a judge’s philosophy on the judiciary’s proper role under the Constitution.
Scholars model the impact of regulations issued in the final months of the Obama Administration.
Legal scholar argues SEC settlements after Dodd-Frank create potential costs for defendants and the public.
As Trump takes aim at regulation, Canada’s experience with regulatory budgeting offers a possible template.
Scholar considers how costs and benefits might be calculated under a regulatory offsets system.
Most agencies enjoy authority to aggregate cases and would benefit from doing so, but very few actually do.
Penn Law students learn about adjudication and regional enforcement of regulations.
Cost-benefit analysis has become a routinized part of policymaking. Probing what justifies this methodology helps us to see how it might be improved.
A recent report suggests that unlike executive agencies, independent agencies get to continue dancing right past midnight.