banner
FEATURED DEBATE
Light at the End of the Pipeline?: Choosing a Forum for Suspected Terrorists
by Amos N. Guiora & John T. Parry

Despite the fact that six years have passed since 9/11, the Pentagon’s recent decision to try six Guantanamo detainees for capital crimes such as “terrorism and support of terrorism” made national headlines. William Glaberson, “U.S. Charges 6 With Key Roles in 9/11 Attacks,” N.Y. Times, Feb. 11, 2008, at A1. In this Debate, Professors Amos N. Guiora, of the University of Utah, and John T. Parry, of Lewis & Clark Law School, attempt to settle the question of what sort of forum is most appropriate to try the thousands of individuals in U.S. custody who are suspected of terrorism.

FEATURED ARTICLE
Antitrust and Nonprofit Hospital Mergers: A Return to Basics
by Barak D. Richman

Courts reviewing proposed mergers of nonprofit hospitals have too often abandoned the bedrock principles of antitrust law, failing to pay heed to the most elemental hallmarks of socially beneficial competition. This Article suggests that courts’ misapplication of antitrust law in these cases reflects a failure to understand the structural details of the American health care market. After reviewing recent cases in which courts have rejected challenges to proposed mergers between nonprofit hospitals, it documents how courts have engaged in a faulty analysis that ultimately protects nonprofit hospitals from the rigors of standard antitrust scrutiny. It then identifies the core principles of antitrust law—preventing supracompetitive prices, optimizing output, and maximizing allocative efficiency—that have been absent from, if not violated by, the rulings in these merger cases.

cartoon
FEATURED RESPONSES

Antitrust Enforcement in the Health Care Industry: A Battleground of Competing Paradigms
by James F. Blumstein

James F. Blumstein examines Professor Richman’s account under the two different “ways of thinking about the product and the industry—the traditional professional/scientific and the market-oriented model.” Explaining that the latter model can play a “constructive role” in the context of hospital mergers, Blumstein concludes that “[a]ntitrust doctrine does not necessarily stand in the way of nonprofit hospitals that seek to merge, but it imposes an analytical metric that focuses on competition and efficiency.”

Moore on Complicity and Causality
by John Gardner

Professor Gardner notes that, though he and Professor Moore agree “that causal wrongs exist,” they “part company [when they] turn to the question of which moral and legal wrongs are causal wrongs.” Gardner argues for a view of accomplice liability that incorporates “causal pluralism,” concluding that “the types of causal contributions made by accomplices to and through the acts of their principals vary” in ways that Moore’s account fails to provide for.

Is Accomplice Liability Superfluous?
by R.A. Duff

Professor Duff explores the “third and fourth desert bases Moore identifies” and argues “that there is still some room for a distinctive doctrine of complicity and thus for accomplice liability as a distinctive type of liability.” Duff focuses on the mens rea of accomplice liability, specifically that of intentionality and foresight, and ultimately claims “that, even if all that Moore says about the actus reus is right, it does not warrant his conclusion” that there is no unique desert basis for accomplice liability.

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review is proud to announce that The Bluebook is now available online.

Fairness to Whom? Perspectives on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005