Atlas Croaks, Supreme Court Shrugs

Michael Greve

George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty; American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Fall 2011

Charleston Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 1. p. 15-48, Fall 2011
George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 12-79

The Supreme Court’s 2010 Term has confirmed, yet again, the legal commentariat’s conviction that the Roberts Court’s conservative majority is recreating an America of Ayn Rand’s imagination. States, the Court has held, may not sue to protect their citizens against out-of-state operators of coal-fired, carbon-spewing power plants.Foreign manufacturers of cutting machines that lop off operators’ limbs may sell the infernal instruments without fear of liability, so long as they do not physically enter or deliberately aim to sell in the plaintiff’s home state. Generic drug makers and vaccine producers may kill and maim their consumers, so long as their labels and products comply with perfunctory federal requirements. All drug makers may overcharge state and local government purchasers, subject only to virtually nonexistent federal administrative oversight. Corporations may force consumers into arbitration agreements; bill them to the tune of a few bucks each but, given the large numbers, for stupendous profits; and then defend against a class action on the grounds that arbitration is not made for that legal device. Also, employers may freely discriminate against millions of employees, so long as they do not inflict an injury that is sufficiently common to warrant a class action. And to protect this order, the plutocracy is constitutionally entitled to buy its own legislators: Public attempts to “level the playing field” violate the First Amendment. Full speed ahead for the Taggart Railroad!

Or maybe not. Upon inspection, the notion that the Roberts Court’s jurisprudence heralds a restoration of unbridled capitalism — or, more modestly, of reliable rules of the road for commercial actors — proves untenable, if not downright absurd. It is true that the Supreme Court often rules for business. And this past Term, unlike in preceding years, those rulings have often been the work of a narrow 5-4 or 5-3 conservative majority. Justice Elena Kagan, though recused from many cases this past Term, has found her reliably liberal voice in no time flat. She does write like a charm, though. However, the pattern is hardly unbroken. Moreover, and far more important, the conservative Justices’ pro-business decisions look like picking weeds in downtown Detroit or for that matter Mrs. Rand’s crumbling New York — well-meant, but unlikely to improve the neighborhood on a lasting basis. The point emerges in contemplation of the charter and instrument that the Supreme Court is supposed to protect: the United States Constitution.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 35

Keywords: United States Supreme Court 2010 Term, Ayn Rand, Roberts Court

JEL Classification: K2

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: December 21, 2011 ; Last revised: November 13, 2012

Suggested Citation

Greve, Michael, Atlas Croaks, Supreme Court Shrugs (Fall 2011). Charleston Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 1. p. 15-48, Fall 2011; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 12-79. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1974988

Contact Information

Michael Greve (Contact Author)
George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty ( email )
3301 Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
United States

Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Logo

American Enterprise Institute (AEI) ( email )
1150 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,710
Downloads: 85
Download Rank: 235,765