Daniel Hanley

@danielahanley.bsky.social

Senior Legal Analyst at the Open Markets Institute. Newsletter: https://danielhanley.substack.com

Here is a public service announcement filmed by the Dallas Cowboys in the 1980s, and I promise that you would not correctly guess who pops up at the end if I gave you 10,000 tries

Honored to be in @lpeproject.bsky.social about the need for a power analysis in affordability politics. Narrow technocratic or deregulatory "affordability" misses the point: affordability is about confronting power dynamics at the core of the cost of living crisis. lpeproject.org/blog/afforda...

Affordability Politics Needs a Power Analysis

A renewed focus on the cost of living crisis is a welcome and potentially unifying frame for the political left. Yet unless we confront the Trump administration's consolidated economic, cultural…

lpeproject.org

The 2nd Trump admin delivered the final blow to the myth of the “neutral” state. The state was never neutral, nor can it ever be. Yet the lie endured. The public now sees clearly that the state picks winners. Politicians can no longer hide behind a veil of false neutrality. Good!

All nonfiction books should use footnotes (i.e., citations at the bottom of each page). Not end-of-chapter notes or end-of-book notes. Just straight up footnotes. Everything else is just so frustrating and cumbersome for the reader.

Hi! I’m Alexis, and I’m running for U.S. Congress to represent #MD06. I’m a technologist, finance nerd, former regulator, and queer mom of 2. I’m not afraid of holding bullies accountable & my experience makes me uniquely qualified to do just that in Congress.

Simply put, my opponents won't (& may be can't) read the legislative history, statutory text, or jurisprudence. ICLE says (while also calling my org’s argument “bizarre”) that “Tampa Electric explicitly prescribed a rule of reason analysis.” No it didn’t. It's that simple folks.

Bild

If the liberal SCOTUS justices were actually liberal they would ALWAYS provide a concurring or dissenting opinion covering a purposive approach to statutory interpretation and not just leave the conservative justices free to to use textualism without any rebuttal.

Brown Shoe, Philadelphia National Bank, Von’s Grocery, Procter & Gamble, and Ford-Autolite were good decisions that effectuated Congress’s legislative directive with Section 7. Besides enacting bright-line rules, a renewed anti-merger policy would adhere to these decisions.

The most disappointing aspect of the antitrust field is how shallow the thinking is among academics. Most spend their time writing about inconsequential technical issues rather than how the law can and should be used to improve our lives affirmatively. It's pathetic.

Law students would likely be shocked to find just how frequently the mainstream antitrust profession treats Circuit Court decisions as more controlling than Supreme Court rulings, a stance that blatantly contradicts the fundamental structure of our legal system.

It was a pleasure and a privilege to speak at Denver Law Review’s incredibly well-run, informative, and timely symposium on antitrust. A video recording of the symposium will be published in the coming weeks. I will also share my remarks soon.

Bild

Looking forward to speaking at Denver Law Review’s Volume 103 Symposium, Beyond Profit: Antitrust Regulation, Market Structure, and the Boundaries of Corporate Power this Friday. Details below. I will be publishing my remarks after the event.

BildBildBildBild

Reminder to Dems and progressives: touting a policy as “pro-competition” or “pro-business” is uninspiring and misses the mark on what a progressive policy project aims to do. We are trying to create a more democratic, inclusive, & responsive political & economic system.