Vol. 105 Issue 6

Congress has recently authorized military commissions to try enemies not only for violations of the international law of war, but also for domestic-law offenses, such as providing material support to terrorism and conspiring to commit law-of-war offenses. Moreover, President Trump has indicated support for further military trials, including trials against U.S. citizens. Such military tribunals lack the civilian jury and independent judge that Article III of the Constitution prescribes. The constitutionality of such an abrogation of Article III’s criminal trial guarantees has been debated during many of the nation’s wars without clear resolution, and the constitutional question is now at the heart of a potentially landmark case, al Bahlul v. United States, currently before the Supreme Court.

There is currently a glaring gap between the economic tools available in antitrust analysis and the practical application of such tools by antitrust attorneys and judges. This disconnect is blatantly evident in the context of hospital mergers, where courts are allowing anticompetitive hospital mergers to go forward and harm consumers by facilitating more expensive, lower quality medical services. For years, courts and lawyers have relied on structural methods of analysis, such as market shares and HHIs, in mergers within all industries. However, such methods are arbitrary and burdensome, primarily because traditional methods typically create overly broad geographic markets that allow anticompetitive mergers to go unnoticed.

This Article identifies and analyzes a new type of specialized “problem-solving” court: status courts. Status courts are criminal or quasi-criminal courts dedicated to defendants who are members of particular status groups, such as veterans or girls. They differ from other problem-solving courts, such as drug or domestic violence courts, in that nothing about the status court offender or the offense he or she committed presents a systemic “problem” to be “solved.” In fact, status courts aim to honor the offender’s experience and strengthen the offender’s association with the characteristic used to sort him or her into court.

The first payday loan that Sandy took out “was for $100, with an $18 fee.” Soon, she found herself with multiple loans, taking out new loans to pay off the fees due on her prior loans. Sandy became trapped in an all-too-common cycle of debt, paying $300 every two weeks on four different payday loans. She continued to borrow for months until she eventually “lost her job and could no longer keep up with the fees” owed on her loans. Eventually, Sandy was forced to file for bankruptcy.