• About
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   Institutional Repository Home
    • Law School
    • Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Works
    • View Item
    •   Institutional Repository Home
    • Law School
    • Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Works
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Amicus Briefs and the Sherman Act: Why Antitrust Needs a New Deal

    Allensworth, Rebecca Haw
    : http://ssrn.com/abstract=1852860
    : http://hdl.handle.net/1803/5607
    : 2011

    Abstract

    Power to interpret the Sherman Act, and thus power to make broad changes to antitrust policy, is currently vested in the Supreme Court. But reevaluation of existing competition rules requires economic evidence, which the Court cannot gather on its own, and technical economic savvy, which it lacks. To compensate for these deficiencies, the Court has turned to amicus briefs to supply the economic information and reasoning behind its recent changes to antitrust policy. This Article argues that such reliance on amicus briefs makes Supreme Court antitrust adjudication analogous to administrative notice-and-comment rulemaking. When the Court pays careful attention to economic evidence and arguments presented in amicus briefs, it moves the process away from a traditional Article III case or controversy and towards rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) where any interested party can influence the decision. In doing so, the Court sacrifices some of the epistemological benefits of Article III's standing requirements. In the case of antitrust, those costs are probably outweighed by how much the Court benefits from hearing the amici's economic arguments. But while the Court's hybrid rulemaking-quasi-administrative and quasi-judicial-may improve upon the traditional judicial model, it cannot realize the full benefits of APA rulemaking. The awkwardness of using amicus curiae briefs like comments on a rulemaking suggests a more dramatic shift in authority over the Sherman Act is necessary. Power to interpret the Act in the first instance should go to an administrative agency.
    Show full item record

    Files in this item

    Icon
    Name:
    Amicus_Briefs.pdf
    Size:
    2.778Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    View/Open

    This item appears in the following collection(s):

    • Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Works

    Browse

    All of VUIRCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login
    Give Now
    Support the Jean and Alexander Heard Library

    Gifts to the Library support the learning and research needs of the entire Vanderbilt community.

    Learn More
    Follow Us
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS
    • Jean and Alexander Heard Library
    • 419 21st Avenue South
    • Nashville, TN 37203
    • 615-322-7100
    • Hours
    • About
    • Employment
    • Staff
    • Contact