FID Recht - Rechtsphilosophie / Rechtssoziologie

Why the Average Treatment Effect for the Overlap Population (ATO) Matters for Natural Experiments

2026-07-30T01:39:25+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Ahead of Print.
Natural experiments—defined as research designs in which treatment is plausibly randomly assigned by a mechanism outside the researcher’s control—are increasingly common in empirical legal studies. Such designs can greatly strengthen the credibility of ...

Unpacking Board Model Choice in Europe: A Multi-Methods Approach

2026-07-25T08:18:37+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Ahead of Print.
The design of corporate governance structures is major topic in the legal and management literature; yet there is little research on what accounts for the choices that companies make. This paper aims to contribute to this under-researched topic by ...

Mitigating the judicial human–AI fairness gap

2026-07-24T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Machine adjudication is perceived as less fair than human judging. We study whether hybrid procedures, in which a human consults an algorithmic recommendation but retains final authority, mitigate this human-AI fairness gap. In two experiments ($N = 7{,}651$), participants evaluate sentencing, bail, and arbitration decisions made by a human, an algorithm, or a human reviewing an algorithmic recommendation. The hybrid procedure eliminates the gap even when human scrutiny is minimal. The effect is complete among White and conservative participants but partial among Black liberals. Insensitivity to review intensity raises the risk of human-washing: nominal oversight may legitimize substantively flawed algorithmic processes.

Is originalism orthodoxy?

2026-07-24T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

What theory of constitutional interpretation has the Supreme Court followed? We search Supreme Court opinions for a wide range of sources that originalists identify as central to their methodology, over the entire universe of cases beginning in 1791. We find that for much of Supreme Court history, conventional indicators of originalist practice—citations to Founding-era sources—are largely absent, raising questions about originalism’s past orthodoxy. Originalist citation practices are absent for much of the 19th century and grow sharply in the late 20th century. The Article elaborates the implications of these findings for debates in constitutional law.

Automated private enforcement: evidence from the Google Fonts Case

2026-07-24T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Plaintiffs often lack incentive to enforce low-value claims, weakening defendants' compliance incentives. The Google Fonts Case offers a unique opportunity to explore whether automated private enforcement increases compliance. After a German court ruled that dynamically embedding Google Fonts violated the GDPR, an Austrian lawyer reportedly used automated tools to detect violations and threaten lawsuits. Using a difference-in-differences approach on a two-year sample of 1,517,429 websites across 32 countries, we find a significant compliance effect in Austria: non-compliance dropped by 22.7 percentage points within three months, a nearly 50% reduction. These findings suggest automated enforcement can be disruptive, pressuring policymakers to recalibrate legal rules.

Declining MOM Conditions in Freezeout Transactions and the MOOM Alternative

2026-07-18T05:48:25+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Ahead of Print.
In a decades-long series of decisions, the Delaware courts constructed a doctrinal infrastructure that encouraged two procedural protections for minority shareholders in freezeout transactions: approval by a special committee of independent directors (“SC”...

Development and evaluation of a goodness-of-fit test for comparing within-source distributions of scores suitable for small sample sizes

2026-07-03T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

In the forensic source identification problem, two objects (typically from known and questioned sources) are compared; statistical methods using a score function applied to all pairs of objects may be used for this evaluation. Due to the limited number of samples per source typical of forensic data, a usual assumption is that all within-source scores follow the same distribution of scores and, therefore, can be pooled together to estimate a common within-source distribution of scores. However, this may not be a reasonable assumption, and published tests do not work well for the small sample sizes (per source) commonly encountered in forensic science. Here, we propose and develop a test for deciding if two within-source distributions of scores should not be considered statistically similar, which is applicable to small sample sizes. To complement the developed test, we present an ad-hoc strategy for pooling sources that accounts for significant discrepancies between the within-source distributions of scores. We then evaluate the Type I error and power of this test on several univariate and multivariate distributions. Finally, we apply the test to a forensic research data set consisting of micromorphometric measurements of aluminum powders.

Cameras in the Courtroom: An Experiment on the Public’s Views

2026-07-04T07:47:52+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Ahead of Print.
Every day, calls grow louder among some quarters for the United States Supreme Court to televise its oral arguments. But what do people think about cameras in the courtroom? We performed an experiment to determine whether watching oral argument influences ...

31 JRE 277 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:10+00:00

Index of Authors and Editors

31 JRE 279 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:10+00:00

Index of Names

31 JRE 283 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:10+00:00

Index of Subjects

31 JRE 287 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:10+00:00

Information for Authors

31 JRE [i] (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Vorwort

31 JRE 7 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Table of Contents

Einleitung 31 JRE 11 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

Die Grenzen fur Politische Proteste 31 JRE 15 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

"Why We Must Be Wary of the Concept of Disobedience" 31 JRE 41 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

How Not to Defend Blowing up a Pipeline: A Response to Andreas Malm's Defense of Environmental Sabotage 31 JRE 53 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

May There Be a Legal Obligation to Engage in Principled Disobedience? 31 JRE 75 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

Civil Liability for Civil Disobedience 31 JRE 93 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

Gelungener Normbruch? Uberlegungen zu den Aktionen der Letzten Generation nach Emile Durkheims "Regeln der Soziologischen Methode" 31 JRE 107 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

Resisting in Times of Law and Order 31 JRE 127 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section A: Civil Disobedience

Hase und Igel - Oder: Logik und (Juristische) Argumentation 31 JRE 143 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section B: Contributions on Legal Argumentation Theory

Uber Argumente Argumentieren? Vorstudie zur Diskussion uber Gultige und Ungultige Argumente im Juristischen Arbeiten 31 JRE 153 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section B: Contributions on Legal Argumentation Theory

Some Contemporary Issues about Ought Implies Can: Where Does Kant Fit in? 31 JRE 187 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section C: Contributions on Law and Ethics in Kant

Why John Dewey's Icarian Attempt, to Soar up as Mediator between Kant and Hitler, Was a Veritable Flop 31 JRE 209 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section C: Contributions on Law and Ethics in Kant

Das Annullierte Werbeverbot fur Schwangerschaftsabbruche aus Medizinethischer Perspektive 31 JRE 259 (2023)

2026-06-26T03:08:09+00:00

Section D: Discussion Forum

Criminal evidence indexes for taxometric investigations of guilty-suspect base rates and classifications

2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Taxometric methods may help researchers estimate guilty-suspect base rates in the criminal justice system and develop procedures for classifying individual suspects. This program requires that criminal evidence be quantified for statistical analysis, but no appropriate indicator variables exist. We discuss the criteria for suitable taxometric indicators and outline characteristics that indexes of criminal evidence should meet. We derive quantitative indexes of four types of criminal evidence: eyewitness identifications, interrogations and confessions, forensic match evidence, and propensity evidence. We sketch how the proposed indexes could be validated within the taxometric program. Further, we illustrate how researchers can empirically probe critical assumptions underlying these indexes, quantify the sizes of departures from these idealizations, and leverage these estimates to modify and improve index calculations. The proposed indexes address an outstanding impediment to the realization of the taxometric program to study guilty-suspect base rates in the criminal justice system.

Using Large Language Models to Measure the Ideology of Supreme Court Justices

2026-06-15T05:56:05+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Ahead of Print.
Ideology is central to understanding the behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The two most widely used measures of judicial ideology—Martin–Quinn and Segal–Cover scores—each have limitations. We propose an alternative approach that leverages large ...

Constitutionalism and majoritarianism reconciled

2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This paper defends the view that both constitutional provisions—norms that are not dependent on our choices—and statutory provisions—norms that are contingent on our choices—are necessary features of a liberal democracy. We make the case for institution-dependent goods, arguing that some goods depend for their existence on being produced by the right law-making institution with its own characteristic deliberative process. Hence, we conclude that individuals may sometimes have an interest (or even a right) that their legal rights be protected by a certain institution, say, the legislature, rather than another, say, the constitution, and vice versa.

AI for scaling legal reform: mapping and redacting racial covenants in Santa Clara County

2026-05-25T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Legal reform can be challenging due to the volume, complexity, and interdependence of laws, codes, and records. One salient example is racially restrictive covenants. In 2021, California mandated that counties identify and redact such covenants, but implementation has proved challenging, with 84 million pages in Santa Clara County (SCC) alone. Through a partnership with SCC, we develop an open, accurate, and fast language model-based pipeline to solve this problem. Our model is deployable elsewhere with minimal resources, fundamentally altering the cost-benefit calculus of such policy reform. We estimate one in three SCC properties were subject to racial covenants in 1950.

Steering, subversion, and parents’ rights

2026-05-25T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Should parental rights block state efforts to influence parenting or frustrate parental goals? Using examples of public-school-opt-out denials and non-disclosure of a child’s gender expression as examples, I argue they should not. When parents harm children or society, governments may steer parents or subvert parental aims. The article considers and rejects claims that steering and subversion lack neutral justification, corrupt parental decision-making, facilitate abuse of state power, or undermine the values of intimacy and nurturing that parental rights are meant to protect. It also reframes parental rights as claim rights against state coercion, but as privileges against children.

What do we need from an account of lex talionis? A response to Lewis

2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This paper is a response to Christopher Lewis’s recent paper on lex talionis. I claim that Lewis’s interpretation cannot answer some of the questions that it needs to. In particular, we need to understand what our fundamental motivation is for subscribing to a principle of proportionality in the first place. Facing this kind of question head on is the only way to rehabilitate the principle of lex talionis—if indeed, it merits rehabilitation.

Section 2 of the voting rights act and native representation

2026-05-14T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

We have undertaken the first systematic, cross-state investigation of the relationship between Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Native representation. Though it is not necessary for Native representation, Section 2 remains an important contributor. It also contributes to the packing of Native voters: safe Section 2 districts—in which Native voters constitute a majority—decrease Native influence in surrounding districts. We provide novel empirical support for a longstanding critique of Section 2’s focus on minority ability to elect, not their influence. Because Native communities have relatively small populations, the focus on electability can impose especially harsh trade-offs on influence.

Modeling the middle ground: A rejoinder to Biedermann, Sjerps, and Kafadar, Rodu, & Campbell-Aaron

2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00

We thank all three sets of commentators for their care in assessing our paper. Their insights are broad and thought-provoking, and we are grateful for the opportunity to respond.

‘Inconclusives’: Divide and conquer?—Commentary on “A Variance Decomposition Approach to Inconclusives in Forensic Black Box Studies” by A. Luby and J. Kadane

2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This commentary summarizes the novel aspects of the paper by Luby and Kadane, discusses specific points raised by the authors, and presents broader considerations, critical aspects, and remaining problems in the field.

We can do so much better than binary decisions and error rates: why don’t we?

2026-04-29T00:00:00+00:00

Error rateForensic Black Box Studyfailure rateinconclusiveevidence evaluation

Judges are trained as good explainers but maligned sentencers: a text similarity approach

2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

“Treating Like Cases Alike” can be achieved through precedents. In the civil law system, judges also use precedents. In China, there are two kinds of precedents: “Vertical Precedents” and “Horizontal Precedents.” These two kinds of precedents are made to achieve the goal of “Treating Like Cases Alike.” Prior research testing the theory in sentencing disparity field usually ignored the reasoning part and often used a systematic view. To fill these gaps, this study mainly focuses on whether Chinese judges produce consistent results, especially considering the reasoning part. We collect 5,839 robbery and 12,243 theft judicial documents from 2018 to 2021 on China Judgement Online, use Relaxed Word’s Mover Distance (RWMD) to calculate every two cases’ facts and reasoning similarity, and use Euclidean distance to calculate the sentencing similarity. Then we use linear regression to see if each case was treated equally. We find that: (i) overall, judges produce consistent reasoning and sentencing more frequently; (ii) judges perform better in reasoning, but they do not produce consistent sentencing results; this results in a phenomenon where an inconsistent outcome sometimes accompanies a proper judicial opinion; and (iii) overall, judges produce more consistent reasoning and less consistent sentencing in complex cases than in simple cases.

A variance decomposition approach to inconclusives in forensic black box studies

2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

In the USA, ‘black box’ studies are increasingly being used to estimate the error rate of forensic disciplines. A sample of forensic examiner participants is asked to evaluate a set of items whose source is known to the researchers but not to the participants. Participants are asked to make a source determination (typically an identification, exclusion, or some kind of inconclusive). We study inconclusives in two black box studies, one on fingerprints and one on bullets. Rather than treating all inconclusive responses as functionally correct (as is the practice in reported error rates in the two studies we address), irrelevant to reported error rates (as some would do), or treating them all as potential errors (as others would do), we propose that the overall pattern of inconclusives in a particular black box study can shed light on the proportion of inconclusives that are due to examiner variability. Raw item and examiner variances are computed and compared with the results of a logistic regression model that takes account of which items were addressed by which examiner. The error rates reported in black box studies are substantially smaller than ‘failure rate’ analyses that take inconclusives into account. The magnitude of this difference is highly dependent on the particular study at hand.

Comment on “A Variance Decomposition Approach to Inconclusives in Forensic Black Box Studies” by Amanda Luby and Joseph Kadane

2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00

designed experimentuncertaintybiasquantile-quantile (QQ) ploterror ratesbootstrap confidence intervalstandardizationvariation

Advancing the conversation on forensic inconclusives

2026-04-27T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This special section introduction contrasts early skepticism in forensic science about using proficiency tests to estimate examiner error rates with contemporary support for deriving error rates from black box studies. It highlights a central methodological dispute: whether and how “inconclusive” conclusions should be incorporated into error-rate calculations. Luby and Kadane propose a variance-decomposition framework that reframes the debate by distinguishing examiner-driven from item-driven sources of inconclusives, and introducing “failure rates” as an alternative metric. The three commentaries and rejoinder that follow advance the discussion about how forensic inconclusives should be analyzed and communicated.

A transparent method to determine limit values for Likelihood Ratio systems

2026-04-25T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

This article describes a novel method to study whether Likelihood Ratio (LR) values proposed by a system are tenable given the validation data. The method is simple and easy to implement, and is based on counting how many times an LR is proposed above (or below) any value k, given both hypotheses in question. This gives the user of the system information on the range in which it is sensible to use the system. Visually, this is easily illustrated and software is provided to do so. An advantage of the method is that no utility functions are necessary to develop it nor ad hoc choices have to be made to test for sensitivity.

Audiovisual Methods for Empirical Legal Studies

2026-04-22T04:01:10+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Ahead of Print.
While recent advances in machine learning and especially text analysis have already transformed empirical legal scholarship, previous work has mostly ignored some of the richest sources of legal data: images and audio. This article contributes to reducing ...

AI Penalty in Judicial Reasoning: Indistinguishable From Human, Devalued When Revealed

2026-04-21T06:56:54+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Ahead of Print.
Can artificial intelligence provide the reasonable justifications required in judicial opinions? This study uses a survey experiment to examine how the public perceives AI-generated judicial reasoning. Results show that participants are unable to ...

Consumers’ Rights in the Shadow of the Brand: A Conjoint Experiment on the Valuation and Trade-Offs of Contractual Rights

2026-04-18T10:44:18+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 105-126, June 2026.
With the rise of standard contracts, tensions persist between protecting consumers from unfair terms and preserving freedom of contract. A key concern is that consumers may waive legal rights, often unknowingly, particularly when dealing with trusted ...

Supporting Comparative Studies of Judicial Behavior: Introducing the Australian High Court Database

2026-04-18T10:32:16+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 251-263, June 2026.
Comparative research on law and legal institutions depends on high-quality data infrastructure. This article introduces the Australian High Court Database—a new resource that encodes structured information on all full judgments of the High Court of ...

Harnessing the Identifiability Effect to Enhance Public Support for Redistribution

2026-04-16T11:42:27+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 153-178, June 2026.
This article proposes a new method of increasing public support for redistribution through tax-and-transfer law by harnessing the psychological phenomenon known as theidentifiability effect. Enhancing such support is crucial, as implementing or ...

AI-Powered Lawyering: AI Reasoning Models, Retrieval Augmented Generation, and the Future of Legal Practice

2026-04-09T04:15:23+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 220-250, June 2026.
Generative AI is set to transform the legal profession, though its most promising uses and ultimate effects are still unclear. While AI models like GPT-4 improve efficiency, they can also “hallucinate” and may undermine legal judgment, particularly in ...

Grading Machines: Can AI Exam-Grading Replace Law Professors?

2026-04-08T09:53:54+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 2-22, June 2026.
In the past few years, large language models (LLMs) have achieved significant technical advances, enabling legal-advocacy organizations to adopt them as complements to—or substitutes for—lawyers and other human experts. The role of LLMs in legal education,...

Some Puzzles in Medical Malpractice Insurance Pricing

2026-03-25T12:51:28+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 51-71, June 2026.
We use staggered difference-in-differences and panel data methods to study the factors that predict medical malpractice (“med mal”) insurance premia, using national data on three specialties (internal medicine, general surgery, ob-gyn) from Medical ...

I Can’t Define Judiciousness, but I Know It when I Don’t See It

2026-03-24T09:52:38+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 90-104, June 2026.
Scholars frequently argue that public perceptions of judicial nominees are shaped by two competing frames; the judiciousness frame focuses on positive aspects of a nominee that meet expectations of a good judge. The ideological frame depicts judges as ...

Judge AI: A Case-Study of Large Language Models as Judges

2026-03-19T03:45:16+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 179-203, June 2026.
Can large language models (LLMs) replace human judges? By replicating a prior 2 × 2 factorial experiment conducted on 31 U.S. federal judges, we evaluate the judicial ability of OpenAI’s GPT-4o. The experiment involves a simulated appeal in an ...

From causality to liability: integrating Bayesian inference and PageRank logic in legal responsibility assessment

2026-02-19T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Legal systems across jurisdictions continue to grapple with the inherent difficulty of attributing responsibility in multi-agent scenarios marked by probabilistic causation, distributed actions, and epistemic uncertainty—particularly within the domain of insurance law. Traditional legal tools such as proximate cause tests, fault trees, and intuitive heuristics often fall short in handling such complexity with analytical precision or procedural fairness. This study introduces CausalRank, a novel, hybrid mathematical model that integrates Bayesian conditional probability inference with a PageRank-based influence propagation algorithm to enable structured, recursive, and normatively calibrated allocation of legal responsibility. The model is structured in five computational stages: (i) construction of an Actor-Action-Event (AAE) causal graph, (ii) population of a Bayesian Conditional Probability Matrix (B) reflecting probabilistic dependencies, (iii) recursive scoring of actors’ causal contributions via an adapted PageRank algorithm (CRS), (iv) normative and evidentiary modulation through the Responsibility Distribution Function (RDF), and (v) final liability allocation with full traceability. Unlike existing models, CausalRank captures not only direct causation but also indirect, systemic influence, and adjusts outputs using legal–theoretic variables such as foreseeability, institutional duty, and evidentiary confidence. Through a legally realistic, multi-agent traffic collision scenario, the study demonstrates how CausalRank produces liability distributions that are computationally rigorous, normatively coherent, and empirically explainable. The model’s transparent, modular design supports its integration into legal decision support systems, insurance adjudication frameworks, and regulatory simulation tools. Key strengths include its ability to manage uncertainty, facilitate counterfactual reasoning, and reflect plural forms of responsibility (individual, institutional, and infrastructural). In sum, CausalRank offers not just a technical innovation but a conceptual framework for rethinking how legal responsibility can be allocated in complex, data-rich, and ethically demanding contexts. It advances the field of computational legal reasoning by aligning formal causal models with normative legal principles, providing a foundation for future interdisciplinary research and real-world application.

Evidence-based evaluations of criminal evidence—the role of evaluation structures for guilt determinations

2026-02-18T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

In legal practice and research, claims are sometimes made that one specific way of evaluating criminal evidence is better than others, for example, preventing bias or even miscarriages of justice. These claims are often made without any scientific basis to support them. This research empirically evaluates and compares the potential of four different evaluation types: (i) Unstructured, (ii) Structured, (iii) Step-by-step, and (iv) Loopy in reducing conviction proneness following a pre-trial detention decision. Three scenario-based experiments were conducted with Swedish lay judges (N = 104), law students (N = 38), and a general crowd (N = 63). Overall, the results suggest that for lay judges and law students, structured evaluations of evidence reduced conviction-proneness, whereas this was not the case for the general crowd.

Towards cumulative forensic science: a commentary on ‘Methodological problems in every black-box study of forensic firearm comparisons’

2026-02-18T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Cuellar et al. recently found that methodological flaws in black-box studies of forensic firearms analysis mean that validity cannot be determined from those studies. Their paper can also be read to indicate that the presence of some of these flaws means that the associated study is so unsound that it can only be used to plan future properly designed validation studies. We seek to clarify that each of the identified flaws, taken individually, does not necessarily prevent studies from contributing to a strong, cumulative research basis for forensic practices. That said, we agree that the overall body of research must avoid the flaws identified by Cuellar et al., and, based on their analysis, it appears the overall body of research has not avoided these flaws. We go on to suggest practices that can help ensure forensic science studies can efficiently and safely build on each other.

Impact of new securities law in China: evidence of ownership difference in government regulation

2026-02-05T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Does the government regulation equally treat all listed enterprises in China? The implementation of the new Securities Law in March 2020 provides an opportunity to examine potential ownership Difference in government regulation in China. This article makes two principal contributions. On the one hand, this article proposes a novel econometric methodology: FD-PSM-DiD (First-Difference’s Propensity Score Matching and Difference-in-Differences). In contrast to the conventional Propensity Score Matching and Difference-in-Differences (PSM-DID), FD-PSM-DID applies the first-difference transformation to the panel data. During propensity score matching, FD-PSM-DID accounts for incremental differences in time-varying characteristics, while also ensuring the similarity between the treatment group and the control group in each period. Consequently, FD-PSM-DID can better satisfy the parallel trends assumption. On the other hand, this article employs FD-PSM-DID to evaluate the impact of the new Securities Law on the information disclosure of listed enterprises in China. The findings reveal that the increment in information disclosure frequency of non-state-owned enterprises (non-SOEs) is significantly higher than that of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) due to the implementation of the new Securities Law. This confirms the existence of ownership heterogeneity in the impact of the new Securities Law on listed enterprises, providing statistically significant evidence for ownership Difference in government regulation in China.

Performative Judging? Measuring the Effect of Video Recording on Judicial Behavior in Circuit Court Oral Arguments

2026-02-14T11:00:33+00:00

Journal of Law &Empirical Analysis, Volume 3, Issue 1, Page 127-152, June 2026.
With the advent of remote-video technology and recent pushes to include video feeds in U.S. Supreme Court hearings, many are concerned about the effect that video and streaming might have on the behavior of U.S. judges and court participants. Previous ...

Unlocking lex talionis

2026-02-10T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

In this article, I operationalize the classical retributive formulation of proportionality—lex talionis, or ``an eye for an eye''—to give some conservative estimates of what it might entail as a limit on the severity of permissible punishment. Respecting lex talionis would entail a radically lenient transformation of the criminal legal systems of the United States (and many other countries), reducing incarceration for nonhomicide offenses by at least an order of magnitude.

Differential validity in fair lending

2026-02-10T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

Fair lending’s disparate impact doctrine aims to address lending disparities. But which disparities? Traditional fair lending has narrowly focused on equal outcomes—examining differences in loan approval rates or interest rates. However, this singular focus overlooks other dimensions of disparities that are essential for fair credit access. This article challenges the conventional emphasis on equal outcomes, demonstrating how it has failed to address deep-rooted inequalities in traditional credit allocation while also stifling innovation in machine-learning and alternative data. We argue that disparities in the validity of creditworthiness predictions—the accuracy with which a model identifies creditworthy applicants—importantly impact equal access to credit and, in particular, the extension of credit to the creditworthy. Despite mounting empirical evidence of the harm of validity disparities, traditional fair lending enforcement inadequately recognizes this disparity dimension, a gap that may become increasingly harmful as lending decisions rely on advanced statistical methods. Future regulatory guidance, enforcement, and supervision should explicitly recognize validity inequalities across protected groups while addressing the accompanying challenges of this more comprehensive perspective on disparities, which is essential for equitable credit allocation.

Bankruptcy’s trilemma: a unifying framework

2026-02-10T00:00:00+00:00

Abstract

We propose a unified framework to explain the key problems underlying corporate bankruptcy law. Creditor rights take two primary forms: the right to take assets from the debtor and the right to block transfers involving the debtor. Taking and blocking rights control agency problems, such as value-diverting transfers by management. But in financial distress, one creditor’s rights can impose costs on the others. Multiple taking rights create the well-known commons problem: creditors can race to the debtor to collect, potentially forcing the liquidation of a valuable firm. Bankruptcy law can stay the creditor race, but a stay introduces one of two alternative problems. Replacing taking rights with blocking rights creates an anticommons problem of holdout and costly delay. Holdout problems can be mitigated by removing blocking rights for some creditors. But without taking or blocking rights, creditors lose essential protection against the very agency problems their contracts try to prevent. Bankruptcy law’s changes to nonbankruptcy rights come in three major forms: a stay (to address commons problems), forced exchanges of rights (to address anticommons), and limits on controllers’ transacting powers (to address agency). But each intervention exacerbates at least one of the other two problems. Thus, we call these three problems—commons, anticommons, and agency—bankruptcy’s trilemma: the law cannot solve all three at once. Our framework provides a powerful lens for analyzing complex contemporary issues, such as “Texas two-step” bankruptcy filings, and for understanding differences in bankruptcy laws across countries.