Volume 34, Issue 1 (forthcoming Winter 2017)
Cary Coglianese & Jennifer Nash, The Law of the Test: Performance-Based Regulation and Emissions Control, 34 Yale J. on Reg. ____ (2017).
Scott Hirst, Frozen Charters, 34 Yale J. on Reg. ____ (2017).
Jerry Mashaw & David Harfst, The Transformation of Automobile Safety Regulation: Bureaucratic Adaptation to Legal Culture, 34 Yale J. on Reg. ____ (2017).
Adam Pritchard & Stephen Choi, The SEC’s Shift to Administrative Proceedings: An Empirical Assessment, 34 Yale J. on Reg. ____ (2017).
Bijal Shah, Interagency Transfers of Adjudication Authority, 34 Yale J. on Reg. ____ (2017).
John C. Brinkerhoff Jr., Note, Ropes of Sand: State Antitrust Statutes Bound by Original Scope, 34 Yale J. on Reg. ____ (2017).
Many state antitrust statutes passed around the turn of the twentieth century contain language that ostensibly limits their jurisdiction to the state’s borders. Courts typically equate this language, as well as the jurisdictional limits of some early antitrust statutes without explicit limits, to the dormant Commerce Clause boundaries present during these statutes’ enactment. However, courts disagree considerably on the historical limits of state antitrust jurisdiction and thus, promulgate a variety of standards that purportedly limit state antitrust statutes to their original scope. This Note argues that these standards, which focus on the goods, transactions, or effects related to trade restraints, are ill-suited for determining the original scope of these statutes. When analyzing state antitrust statutes, early courts frequently held that the fate of state enforcement turned on whether the restraint itself crossed state borders, even when it exclusively affected interstate transactions. Accordingly, this Note argues that modern courts should adopt a “restraint-focused” standard as a more historically faithful approach to understanding the scope of early antitrust statutes.