Although I hate to begin a serious article on an important Supreme Court case this way, the Court’s recent decision Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States reminds me of nothing so much as the old Woody Allen line that “sex without love is an empty experience…but as empty experiences go, it’s one of the best.” This is because, for all practical purposes, Andersen is a meaningless decision, but as meaningless decisions go, it’s one of the most significant. The Supreme Court’s reversal of Andersen’s conviction cannot revive the now-defunct firm, and the obstruction of justice statute that the Court is interpreting has, in all ways relevant to Andersen’s conviction, been superseded by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. And yet, by interpreting the language of the statute to require the consciousness of wrongdoing, the Court may be indicating an important change of direction in the way it deals with the federal law of white collar crime. If so, Andersen may turn out to be a very important meaningless decision.
The Significant Meaninglessness of Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States
The Significant Meaninglessness of Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States
Recent Publications
- “Equal Opportunity, Not Reparations” in the Handbook of Equality of Opportunity (2024)
- “A Bayesian Solution to Hallsson’s Puzzle”
- Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests, 2nd Edition
- “Optimizing political influence: a jury theorem with dynamic competence and dependence”
- Why not anarchism?
Recent News
- Advocacy group concerned pay-for-plasma clinics expanding to Ontario will hurt voluntary donations
- Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore, Debating Democracy (University of Zurich’s UBS Center, 2024)
- Jason Brennan “Everything Wrong with Democracy” on the Alex O’Connor Podcast (January 28, 2024)
- On the affirmative action ruling, the Supreme Court got it half right
- Is the effective altruism movement in trouble?