Abstract This article develops a comprehensive account of the methods of consent solicitation broadly construed. We offer four principal contributions. First, we identify the features of a solicitation that can produce coercive intercreditor dynamics. Second, we document the possibility of coercive methods under standard bond and loan contracts. Third, we show that economic considerations can justify coercion. Fourth, we conclude that the most coercive prevailing techniques cannot be so easily justified and propose an approach to construing debt contracts that would restrain what are likely the most value-destructive solicitation methods without condemning longstanding and plausibly value-enhancing techniques.

Abstract When an officer challenges her removal by the president, what relief is available? This article shows that the appropriate remedy will typically be a declaratory judgment. The interim relief question is harder. The suggestion here is that if an officer sues immediately to challenge her removal, there should be a presumption that the federal courts will prevent her removal during the pendency of the litigation. Otherwise, the presumption should be against interim relief. This approach is grounded in the principles of equity, and it prevents “flipping” back and forth in who occupies the office during the litigation.

Abstract The USA, alongside many other nations, presently faces a vital policy choice: should it adopt the global minimum tax proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, purportedly to ensure basic levels of corporate taxation of large multinationals? I set out a framework for analyzing and predicting global minimum tax adoption by self-interested, national-income-maximizing governments. Contrary to both popular and prior scholarly claims, the global minimum tax is incentive incompatible: countries from which multinationals originate will likely suffer deep losses; the tax’s purported enforcement tool, even read in an aggressive, controversial fashion, is ineffective. The global minimum tax may unravel despite initial adoption. (JEL codes: F23, F55, H25, H73, H87, K34).

Abstract This article presents a measure of the efficiency consequences of changes to tax policies that inform a wide range of tax law debates. Building upon recent extensions to the “elasticity of taxable income” concept, we clarify the relationship among revenue effects, administrative costs, and compliance costs. The resulting measure—the behavioral elasticity of tax revenue (BETR)—captures the change in total resources resulting from marginal changes in tax rates, the tax base, or tax enforcement. We illustrate the BETR’s utility through a series of case studies. We also show how the BETR can help policy makers select more efficient redistributive mechanisms.

Abstract This article studies the political preferences of chief executive officers (CEOs) of public companies. We use Federal Election Commission records to compile a comprehensive database of the political contributions made by more than 3800 individuals who served as CEOs of Standard & Poor’s 1500 companies between 2000 and 2017. We find a substantial preference for Republican candidates. We identify how this pattern is related to the company’s industry, region, and CEO gender. In addition, we show that companies led by Republican CEOs tend to be less transparent to investors with respect to their political spending. Finally, we discuss the policy implications of our analysis.

This article explores the prevalence of unenforceable and misleading terms in residential rental contracts. For this purpose, the study analyzes a sample of seventy residential leases from the Greater Boston Area in terms of Massachusetts Landlord and Tenant Law. The article’s findings reveal that landlords often use deceptive—as well as clearly invalid—provisions in their contracts, and regularly fail to disclose the vast majority of the mandatory rights and remedies that the law bestows upon tenants in their leases. Building on psychological insights and on survey evidence, the article suggests that this drafting pattern may significantly affect tenants’ decisions and behavior. In particular, when a problem or a dispute with the landlord arises, tenants are likely to perceive the terms in their lease agreements as enforceable and binding, and consequently forgo valid legal rights and claims. Therefore, the article expects that such clauses will persist as long as monitoring and enforcement mechanisms do not sufficiently deter landlords from using such terms in their contracts. In light of this evidence, the article discusses preliminary policy prescriptions.

In ordinary life, people who assess other people’s assessments typically take into account the other judgments of those they are assessing in order to calibrate the judgment they are now assessing. The restaurant and hotel rating website TripAdvisor is exemplary, because it facilitates calibration by providing access to a rater’s previous ratings. This makes it possible to see whether a particular rating is coming from a rater who is enthusiastic about every place she patronizes, or from someone who is incessantly hard to please. And even when less systematized, as with the assessment of a letter of recommendation or a college transcript, calibration by recourse to the decisional history of those whose judgments we are assessing is a ubiquitous feature of ordinary life. Yet despite the ubiquity and utility of such calibration, the legal system seems perversely to reject it. Appellate courts do not openly adjust their standard of review based on the previous judgments of the judge whose decision they are reviewing, nor do judges who review legislative or administrative decisions, magistrates who evaluate search warrant representations, and even jurors who assess witness perception. In most legal domains, calibration by reference to the other decisions of the judgment being reviewed is invisible, either because it does not exist or because what reviewing bodies know informally is not something they are willing to admit to using. Appellate courts do not, at least openly, look more carefully at the decisions of a trial judge whose decisions are often reversed, and administrative law judges do not acknowledge examining the decisions of some administrators more closely because of what they know about the decisional history of that administrator. However common it is for ordinary people to attempt to calibrate the decisions of those on whom they rely, the law generally resists such calibration, implicitly prohibiting access to a reviewee’s decisional history and discouraging publicly acknowledging that a decisional history has played a role in a reviewer’s decision. Assisted by insights from cognitive psychology and philosophy, this Article examines law’s seeming aversion to calibration, and to explore what this aversion says about the nature of law and legal decision-making.

What difference do starting points make? The question is important for decision-making in general and for law in particular, including the interpretation of statutes. Judges must begin the interpretive process somewhere. Today, Supreme Court opinions sometimes promote the idea of starting with the text of the statute at issue. But what does this mean, in practice, and does it matter to decisions? "Start with the text" could be a signal of allegiance to an interpretive school and an indication that some interpretive tools are more important than or even lexically superior to others. At present, however, the statement delivers neither of those messages well. Instead, we might think about the statement as a rule for sequencing sources. Although the mere sequence in which information is considered does not have any clear logical significance for case results, the idea of starting with statutory text can become almost unnervingly significant—and without adding lexical priority.