Upper-Level Reading Groups

Upper-level JD and LLM students can enroll in reading groups led by our JSD students. The groups, of no more than 12 students, will meet four times during the spring semester to discuss readings or other materials related to a topic of special interest to the JSD convener(s).

The idea is to provide small groups of students the opportunity to get to know each other, in the context of discussing interesting topics that range well beyond the Law School curriculum. Participation is, of course, entirely optional.

A description and meeting details of each Upper-Level Reading Group is provided below.

Registration

To sign-up for an Upper-Level Reading Group, please submit a response to the Spring 2025 Upper-Level Reading Groups Sign-Up form by January 24.

Re-Orienting the U.S. Antimonopoly Tradition

JSD Leader: Junhao Chen

Thursdays, 6:00-8:00 PM
Location: TBD
Meeting Dates: 2/6, 2/27, 3/13, 4/3

This reading group provides an opportunity to read, discuss, and think about the reorientation of the U.S. antimonopoly tradition. We will meet four times, with the fourth session’s topic determined by participants. 

The first session introduces the intellectual origins of modern U.S. competition law (the Chicago/Harvard double helix) and examines the Neo-Brandeisian movement. 

The second session addresses the recent antitrust debate over incorporating racial and gender equality into enforcement actions. Readings include short excerpts from works by Lina Khan, John Newman, K. Sabeel Rahman, Bailey Sanders, and Zephyr Teachout. The core question is whether antitrust law can address “democracy’s deficits” by transforming into small-c constitutional law or anti-discrimination law. Institutionally, we will consider whether “racing and gendering” antitrust can harm the agency in the long term, given the Supreme Court’s increasing skepticism toward the administrative state.

The third session examines the tension between “smallness” and U.S. antitrust law. On the one hand, the FTC continues to prosecute small businesses for antitrust violations. On the other, the recent litigation against Amazon has been described as allowing “small business [to] enter the market…rather than being muscled out by one of the big guys.” Commentators have called for prioritizing “big cases” (against Big Tech) over smaller ones (i.e., actions against small businesses) and modifying the consent order in Cooperativa (small independent pharmacies boycotted to negotiate with dominant pharmacy benefit managers). We ask whether Congress intended antitrust law to support small business. Should antitrust law help preserve a market structure that enables small businesses to thrive? Should such an approach replace the efficiency framework that arguably benefits larger firms? 

Potential topics for the fourth session include geopolitics in antitrust enforcement (e.g., the “China Card” in recent transnational mergers); green antitrust (M&A in the oil industry and ESG); “labor antitrust paradox;” the antimonopoly presidency or the whole-of-government approach to promote competition; new antitrust federalism (e.g., state unfair competition laws regulating global platforms; states’ challenges to national mergers); Europe’s ex ante antitrust regulations as alternatives (e.g., DMA); and, of course, the inevitable Big Tech. In addition to short excerpts from law reviews, our readings include blog posts, case law, and current court and agency complaints.

Did Rights Go Wrong? Contemporary Challenges to Fundamental Rights

JSD Leaders: Jorge Gaxiola Lappe & Mateo Merchán Duque

Tuesdays, 6:35-8:05 PM
Location: TBD
Meeting Dates: 2/4, 2/25, 3/11, 4/8

The purpose of this reading group is to explore contemporary challenges to fundamental rights and the practices that are based on them. Are normative systems based on rights capable of solving the most pressing problems of our times? Would a system based on human duties better address these problems? To what extent have rights facilitated and legitimized imperialistic agendas? Have rights become an obstacle to our struggle to achieve material equality? Finally, are rights compatible with democratic self-government? We will explore how these challenges undermine the legitimacy of fundamental rights practices and whether the practices could be modified to address them adequately. We will read approximately 30 pages for each session. 

Session 1: A system of rights or a system of duties? We will start by assessing why we want to have legal systems grounded on fundamental rights in the first place. Why aren’t duties enough? Are they indispensable? Tentative reading materials: a) Robert M. Cover, Obligation: A Jewish Jurisprudence of the Social Order; b) Samuel Moyn, Rights vs. Duties. 

Session 2: Are rights imperialistic? In this session, we will analyze the interplay between human rights and imperialism, a contentious issue that has sparked extensive debate among scholars, activists, and policymakers. Tentative reading materials: a) ROBERT MEISTER, AFTER EVIL (selected fragments); b) Stephen Kinzer, End Human Rights Imperialism Now, THE GUARDIAN; c) Sohrab Ahmari, Beware Those Who Sneer at “Human Rights Imperialism,” THE GUARDIAN. 

Session 3: Are rights an obstacle to material equality? In this session, we will assess Samuel Moyn’s argument that, by presenting the minimum satisfaction of human rights as their main task, States have abandoned their responsibility to address socioeconomic inequality. Tentative reading materials: a) SAMUEL MOYN, NOT ENOUGH: HUMAN RIGHTS IN AN UNEQUAL WORLD (selected fragments); b) Grainne De Burca, Shaming Human Rights. 

Session 4: Are rights undemocratic? In this session, we will address the tensions between different conceptions of democracy (e.g., representative and deliberative) and the definition of the content and scope of fundamental rights. Tentative reading materials: a) JAMAL GREENE, HOW RIGHTS WENT WRONG (selected fragments); b) ROSALIND DIXON, RESPONSIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW  (selected fragments).

Rawls and The Constitution

JSD Leader: Henry Federer

Tuesdays, 6:00-8:00 PM
Location: TBD
Meeting Dates: 2/11, 2/25, 3/11, 4/1

This reading group will examine the intersection of John Rawls’s philosophy and constitutional law, theory, and practice. Widely considered to be the most important English-speaking political philosopher of the twentieth century, Rawls’s writings on justice, liberty, equality, and political legitimacy have important implications for constitutional law, constitutional thought, and legal philosophy. In our first session, we will read excerpts of A Theory of Justice (1971) and Political Liberalism (1993). We will read excerpts of A Theory of Justice to understand Rawls’s liberal egalitarian vision for society, which is centered on the inviolability of the individual and the importance of distributive equality. We will read excerpts of Political Liberalism to understand his theory of political legitimacy, which is focused on how the use of political power can be justified within a pluralistic society. In the following three sessions, we will read articles that examine the relationship between Rawls’s philosophy and constitutional rights, judicial review, and democracy. Through reading and discussion, the reading group will address questions on the nature of justice and equality, constitutional interpretation, the legitimacy of judicial supremacy, democratic fragility, and the relationship between liberalism and democracy. Throughout, we will consider critical perspectives of Rawls’s works and what implications his thinking may have on the current legal and political moment. No prior knowledge of Rawls or political philosophy is expected or required.

Theorizing Border Control

JSD Leader: Anja Bossow

Mondays, 6:00-8:00 PM
Location: TBD
Meeting Dates: 2/10, 2/24, 3/17, 4/7

In recent years, the governmental objective of border control has been invoked to license a range of both legally and ethically highly controversial measures. Travel and asylum bans, family separation policies, or the criminalization of irregular entry and humanitarian assistance are just some examples. Yet, borders are also an essential, even foundational part of our system of political organization and most people consider governmental efforts at controlling them to be both necessary and justifiable. Against this backdrop, this Reading Group explores the law and theory of border control, delving into the legal frameworks, normative assumptions, and ethical considerations that shape how governments justify control over access to territory, membership, and rights. Key questions we will explore are: what are borders and why do we want to control them? What are the techniques of border control, their legal and theoretical justifications and permissible scope? How does border control relate to other key governmental tasks and ideals, such as safety and security, public order, or the rule of law? What are the ethical considerations and normative tradeoffs that underpin or should inform governmental attempts at controlling borders? The readings will be a mix of case law, legal scholarship from the fields of immigration, constitutional, criminal, and international law, as well as writings from other fields such as criminology, political theory, and philosophy.