Who speaks in federal court for the structural principles of the federal Constitution? Under familiar practice—endorsed by the Supreme Court in its 2011 decision Bond v. United States—it is not solely the institutions empowered directly by federalism or the separation of powers but also individual litigants who can raise structural constitutional objections. Such individual standing for the structural constitution is unusual because, in effect, it enables a species of third-party standing elsewhere condemned by the Court. This Article analyzes individual standing for the structural constitution from both doctrinal and political economy perspectives. Such individual standing, I contend, conflicts with Article III’s larger ambition to exclude from federal court those controversies with excessive externalities. Consideration of structural litigation’s political economy further shows that enlarging the pool of litigants by allowing individual as well as institutions to sue is unlikely to yield closer conformity to the Constitution given interest group dynamics. As an alternative to the current regime, the Article specifies a straitened regime of narrow justiciability that is more harmonious with Article III goals and more likely to secure fidelity to the structural constitution.
Article
Breaking Bankruptcy Priority: How Rent-Seeking Upends the Creditors’ Bargain
Tax in the Cathedral: Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Tax
The distinction between property rules and liability rules has revolutionized our understanding of many areas of law. But scholars have long assumed that this distinction has no relevance to tax law. This assumption is flatly wrong. Tax law currently uses both property rules and liability rules, and the choice between them has real consequences. When a taxpayer violates a requirement for a favorable tax status, tax law either imposes additional tax proportionate to the harm (a liability rule) or imposes the draconian penalty of taking away the tax status entirely (a property rule). This recognition has three key implications. First, Congress can and should draw on the rich property and liability rule literature to draft better tax legislation and to reform the tax code. Second, novel variations on property and liability rules can be used to rethink the remedies given to the IRS. Third, tax law will enrich the literature on property and liability rules across many other areas of law.