A Festschrift for David Ibbetson

Essays in Law and History for David Ibbetson, edited by Joe Sampson and Stelios Tofaris is published today by Hart Publishing/Bloomsbury:

Over the last 40 years, David Ibbetson has paved the way in a remarkably broad range of fields.  In ancient law, his scholarship has spanned both the detailed doctrine of the Roman law of obligations and the cross-pollination of legal influences around the ancient Mediterranean. His work on English legal history has ranged from the earliest days of the common law through to the turn of the 20th century, combining forensic archival research with a sensitivity to how lawyers thought about their subject. In European legal history, he has shown the porousness of the civil law and the extent to which it has been shaped by other areas of intellectual life, from theology to rationalist philosophy.

The contributions to this volume in his honour mirror both the breadth and the depth of Ibbetson's scholarship. The book combines chapters from leading legal historians, close colleagues and over a dozen of Ibbetson's students. Some chapters build upon or respond to Ibbetson's ideas, others his areas of interest. The contributions are introduced by Ibbetson's valedictory lecture on the importance of legal history to modern practice and scholarship, and the work yet to be done.

–Dan Ernst.  Table of Contents after the jump.

Kastor's "Creating a Federal Government"

We note with interest the website Creating a Federal Government, created by Peter J. Kastor, Washington University, St. Louis, which

combines a book that chronicles how the federal government operated in
 its first decades of existence with a major digital archive that will reconstruct the scope and scale of the early federal workforce. The Website will contain a full listing of federal officials, both civil and military, and will enable users to analyze the careers of these officials at both the individual and aggregate levels. Creating a Federal Government continues Kastor’s commitment to interdisciplinary inquiry by bridging the gap between history and political science, engaging questions in American political development, presidential history, and institutional behavior.  This project also reflects over three decades of work in digital history.

--Dan Ernst.  H/t: GR

CFP: ASLH 2025

[We have the following CFP.  DRE]

Call for Papers: American Society for Legal History 2025 ASLH Annual Meeting, (Detroit, November 14-16, 2025)

The Program Committee of the American Society for Legal History invites proposals for the 2025 meeting to be held November 14-16 in Detroit. Panels and papers on any facet or period of legal history from anywhere in the world are welcome. We encourage thematic proposals that transcend traditional periodization and geography. The online portal opens on December 9, 2024. The deadline for Pre-Conference Symposia proposals is Friday, February 28, 2025. The deadline for all other submissions is Tuesday, March 25, 2025. All proposals except for pre-conference symposia must be submitted through this link.

Panel proposals should include the following: a CV with complete contact information for each person on the panel, including chairs and commentators; 300-word (maximum) abstracts of individual papers; and a 300-word (maximum) description of the panel. Only complete panel proposals will be considered.

Scholars looking to build a panel may post their potential paper topics here. We encourage individuals to peruse this spreadsheet to identify other scholars with common interests, beyond their familiar networks. Senior scholars who are willing to chair and/or comment on a panel may register their interest and availability here. All program participants must be current members of the Society by the date of the Annual Meeting. Information on how to build a successful panel can be found here. The Program Committee especially encourages panels that include participants from groups historically under-represented in the organization, and that include participants who represent a diversity of rank, experience, and institutional affiliation.

In addition to traditional panels featuring presentations of work in progress, the Program Committee welcomes other forms of structured presentation for a 90-minute slot, such as a skills/pedagogical workshop (chair, 3-4 presenters) or a roundtable format (chair, 3-5 presenters).

Following last year’s highly successful inaugural session, this year’s Annual Meeting will also dedicate a session to a presentation and discussion of Digital Legal History projects. Individuals interested in participating in this session should submit a short description of their project (up to 300 words) as well as a CV. As a complement to the session, there will be a poster display of the accepted projects. Accepted participants in the Digital Legal History session will be asked to submit a poster design to the organizers by early October. Posters will be printed onsite.

In addition to the above formats, this year’s meeting will also consider New Directions panels. The purpose of these panels will be to identify cutting-edge methodological and topical directions in legal history, to define new subfields, and/or generate dialogue among scholars whose recent books (published since 2022 or forthcoming) have tackled common historiographic questions. These panels will feature three to five authors of new books organized by theme, chronology, methodology and may also include scholars writing review essays of a field, or others similarly positioned. The session abstract should include the author, title, publisher, and publication date for each proposed book. Please note that the Program Committee will devote only a small number of sessions to this type of panel. The New Directions panels replace the Author-Meets-Readers (AMR) panels which were formally on the program; AMRs will not be available for the 2025 meeting.

[The Program Committee invites "traditional panels," "skills/pedagogical workshops," "roundtables," "New Directions" sessions, and "Digital Legal History" sessions.  For formats and submission requirements, see the CFP.]

The Program Committee additionally seeks proposals for full-day or half-day pre-conference symposia crafted around related themes to augment traditional conference offerings. We especially encourage proposals for pre-conference events that will involve scholars in emerging fields or in fields previously underrepresented at ASLH conferences and/or that will promote early career scholarly development. We encourage those considering submitting a proposal for pre-conference symposia to be in touch with the program committee chairs. To submit a proposal, please email the program co-chairs directly to provide a short proposal (1-2 pages) including program title, the intended length of program, and a program description, as well as a CV and contact information for each presenter. The Program Committee is available to consult with organizers of such symposia as they develop their proposal, but pre-conference symposia must be self-funded. Organizers are encouraged but not required to host their symposia at the conference hotel. Please note that the deadline for these submissions is earlier than the deadline for main conference submissions so that organizers whose symposia are not selected have an opportunity to submit their panels to the main conference.

As a general matter, we will not be able to accommodate special scheduling requests, nor will we be able to support hybrid or virtual presentations or panels. (For a fuller explanation of this policy, please see the ASLH Annual Meetings FAQ page.) Until a draft of the program is circulated, prospective presenters, chairs, and commentators at the main conference should plan to be available in person on Friday, November 15, and Saturday, November 16.

The ASLH has a strict one-appearance policy (excluding appearances at pre-conference symposia). Prospective participants may submit proposals for multiple sessions, with the understanding that the panel chair will be responsible for promptly finding an appropriate substitute member for any session from which a participant has to withdraw.

Limited financial assistance (covering airfare and ground transportation only) is available for presenters in need, with priority given to graduate students, post-doctoral fellows, contingent faculty, and scholars from abroad.

The members of the Program Committee are Maggie Blackhawk, Jocelyn Hendrickson, Zach Herz, Hide Hirota, Youssef Ben Ismail, Jedidiah Kroncke, Tim Lovelace, Jane Manners, Noah Rosenblum, Natasha Wheatley, and Yanna Yannakakis. The co-chairs of the Program Committee are Deborah Dinner (deborah.dinner@cornell.edu) and Jessica Marglin (marglin@usc.edu).

ASLH Election Results

We have been (slowly) recapping the news announced at this year's meeting of the American Society for Legal History. This post reports election results.

Incoming Board Members: Sally Hadden (Western Michigan University), Kate Masur (Northwestern University), Kim Welch (Vanderbilt University), Jane Manners (Temple Beasley School of Law), and Will Smiley (University of New Hampshire).

Incoming Nominating Committee Members: Rohit De (Yale University) and Alison LaCroix (University of Chicago Law).

The full memberships of the Board and the Nominating Committee are available here.

-- Karen Tani

Lee on Privacy's Redeemer Origins

Sophia Z. Lee, University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, has posted The Reconciliation Roots of Fourth Amendment Privacy, which appears in the University of Chicago Law Review:

The Roberts Court has made protecting “the privacies of life” a catchphrase of Fourth Amendment law in the digital era. The time is thus ripe for revisiting the doctrinal and political roots of this newly influential quote from the Court’s 1886 decision Boyd v. United States. Existing scholarship views Boyd and its paean to privacy as an opening salvo in the Supreme Court’s turn-of-the-twentieth-century deregulatory jurisprudence (often associated with the Court’s most famous substantive due process decision, Lochner v. New York). Scholars also assume Boyd’s emphasis on privacy was in keeping with the Founders’ view of the Fourth Amendment.

This Article makes a novel argument that Boyd and its elevation of protecting the “privacies of life” to an animating principle of the Fourth Amendment was instead a product of Reconstruction and its dismantlement. Doctrinally, the Article argues that legal actors did not commonly associate the Fourth Amendment with something they called “privacy” until after the Civil War. This association, along with Boyd’s other core doctrinal elements, was instead established during Reconstruction. Further, these Fourth Amendment innovations were pioneered in Congress, not the federal courts. Politically, the Article argues that Boyd’s innovations did not arise in response to growing federal economic regulation. Instead, the idea that the Fourth Amendment protected the privacies of life was fed by white Americans’ commitment to preserving racial hierarchy after the Civil War. Shared by moderate Republicans and Democrats, this embrace of Fourth Amendment privacy built an anodyne bridge between otherwise fierce political foes. In other words, Fourth Amendment privacy was produced by and helped secure Reconciliation—the process through which white Americans North and South, Democrat and Republican came together to limit Reconstruction, preserve white supremacy, and pave the way for the violent disenfranchisement of newly freed Black men.

The Article is primarily a work of legal history; it concludes, however, by considering the divergent doctrinal implications of resituating Boyd and Fourth Amendment privacy in the politics of Reconciliation. Doing so supports the Roberts Court’s recent Fourth Amendment decisions without undermining scholars who contend that the Fourth Amendment protected what we today call privacy from the start. At the same time, this history poses a problem for Justice Neil Gorsuch and other libertarians who use the modern administrative state’s connections to Jim Crow-era white supremacy to undermine its legitimacy. This Article shows that the very libertarian tradition championed by these skeptics of the administrative state suffers the same tainted roots. Critical scholars, for their part, document how constitutional privacy doctrines provide limited protection to marginalized communities. This Article’s history could support their reparative case for more robust Fourth Amendment protections.

--Dan Ernst

ASLH Preyer Awards to Hammock Jones, Watkins

Continuing our tradition of recapping the prizes and awards announced at the recent meeting of the American Society for Legal History, this post features the 2024 winners of the Kathryn T. Preyer award. About the award:

Named after the late Kathryn T. Preyer, a distinguished historian of the law of early America known for her generosity to early career legal historians, the program of Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars is designed to help legal historians at the beginning of their careers. At the annual meeting of the Society two early career legal historians designated Kathryn T. Preyer Scholars will present what would normally be their first papers to the Society.

This year's awards went to Christen Hammock Jones (University of Pennsylvania) for "Consuming Abortion On Demand: Medicine, Law, & Consumer Rights After Roe V. Wade" and to Grace Watkins (Yale University) for "'Incurable Entanglement': The Hybrid Powers of Campus Police."

As is customary, the winners presented their work at the annual meeting. Reva Siegel (Yale Law School) and Anna Lvovsky (Harvard Law School) provided comments. 

Congratulations to Christen Hammock Jones and to Grace Watkins!

-- Karen Tani

Weekend Roundup

• LHB mourns the passing of Ken Kersch, a professor of political science at Boston College and an excellent historian of American conservatism, including its constitutional dimensions.  David Bernstein has posted his AHR review of Kersch's Constructing Civil Liberties on the Volokh Conspiracy.  H/t: DS.
  

• An essay by H.L.A. Hart, found in Ronald Dworkin's papers and responding to Dworkin's work, has now been published in the American Journal of Jurisprudence as Policies, Principles, and Adjudication: (c. 1977-82). 

• From Process, the blog of the Organization of American Historians: Jennifer Thomson (Bucknell University) reflects on her June 2024 Journal of American History article on “The Environmental Protection Agency, Sewer Infrastructure, and the Racialized Geography of the United States.”

• Julian Ku ‘s review essay of Curtis Bradley’s Historical Gloss and Foreign Affairs: Constitutional Authority in Practice (Federalist Society). 
  

• From In Custodia Legis (the blog of the law librarians of Congress): news that the Senate Journal from Century of Lawmaking has been added to Congress.gov. Also: a remembrance of "Pablo Abeita: Judge and Isleta Governor."

• Keith Whittington, YLS, discusses his book, The Impeachment Power: The Law, Politics, and Purpose of an Extraordinary Constitutional Tool in the podcast series of the Princeton University Press.

• The final Helsinki Legal History Series seminar of the year is “Corporations and Jurisdictional Culture: Exploring the Political Identity of Early Modern Iberian Monarchies,” presented by Pedro Cardim, Nova University Lisbon. Tuesday, December 10th, 2024, 3:00 PM - 4:30 PM (UTC+2) at University of Helsinki Main Building, Room U3039.  More.
  

• "The next online meeting of the Environment, Law, and History Global Workshop will take place at 9 pm GMT on Thursday, January 16. We will discuss with Rebecca McLennan (UC Berkeley History Department) her "Litigating Extinction, Anticipating the Anthropocene: Law, Nature, and the ‘Fur Seal Trial’ of 1893", with comments by Angela Fernandez (U Toronto Law)" (H-Law).
  

• CFP: "The Bentham Project is hosting a two-day conference entitled ‘Jeremy Bentham, the Panopticon penitentiary scheme, and “A Picture of the Treasury”’, which will take place at Bentham House, Faculty of Laws, University College London, on 23 and 24 July 2025"  (H-Law). 
  

• From LPE Blog: Eamon Coburn (Yale Law School) on the history of treating abusive labor practices as a form of unfair competition (drawing on this recent piece in the Yale Law Journal).
  

• Syllabi for our times, from the Stanford's Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. 
  

• ICYMI: The legal historian Nathan Perl-Rosenthal got a shout out when his student entered the transfer portal (Press-Telegram).  As a former Fulbrighter to NZ, I feel for that country's humanists (RNZ) (DRE).  Five times martial law was declared (History).  The first blind woman licensed to practice law in California (UC Law SF). A virtual tour of Hawaii's King Kamehameha V Judiciary History Center (KHON). Ned Blackhawk’s list of best recent books about Native America (New Yorker).
  

Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Call for Nominations: ASLH Honorary Fellows

[We have the following announcement.  DRE.]

The Honors Committee of the American Society for Legal History solicits nominations of senior scholars for consideration for election as Honorary Fellows of the Society.  Election as Honorary Fellow is the highest honor the Society can confer.  It recognizes distinguished historians whose scholarship has shaped the broad discipline of legal history and influenced the work of others.  Honorary Fellows are the scholars we admire, whom we aspire to emulate, and on whose shoulders we stand.  The Society seeks to recognize scholars who are not simply distinguished in their fields, but who also have given back to the discipline and made their fields stronger by creating communities of scholars and scholarship and by helping other (often younger) scholars to stand on their shoulders.  In other words, scholars who are as committed to building a future for their fields as they are to studying the past.  Commensurate with the growing international reach of the Society, we seek nominations of senior scholars who, collectively, similarly encompass the wide scope of scholarship in legal history.

Nominations should be submitted to Bruce H. Mann, chair of the Honors Committee, by email (mann@law.harvard.edu) before January 15, 2025.  Each nomination should include a statement of why the nominee merits election.  Statements should address the nominee’s scholarly distinction and their citizenship in the field.  A list of current and past honorary fellows is [here].

Cherneff on Reconstruction-Era Racial Apprenticeship

Lyle Cherneff, a 2024 Yale Law graduate, has published Remembering In re Turner: Popular Constitutionalism in the Reconstruction Era, in the Yale Law Journal:

This Note presents a historical account of the underexamined movement to end racialized apprenticeship laws in the post-slavery era. Original archival research from census records, Union Army files, and newspaper articles illustrate the contributions of formerly enslaved men, women, and children to the ultimately successful movement to declare Maryland's apprenticeship laws unconstitutional. Relying on the insights of Critical Race Theory and feminist legal theory, this Note fills a gap in existing legal history by producing a consideration of Reconstruction Era constitutional lawmaking "from the bottom." This Note argues that our shared constitutional memory has been artificially narrowed by an underconsideration of freedpeople's constitutional theories and claims. Restoring the anti-apprenticeship movement to our constitutional memory strengthens contemporary efforts to end racial discrimination in the child welfare system and to vindicate familial rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

--Dan Ernst

CFP and Plenaries at Policy History

[We have the following CFP and news of plenary sessions at the Policy History Conference from its convenor, Donald Critchlow, ASU Katzin Family Professor of History, Director, ASU Center for American Institutions.  DRE]

The Institute for Political History, the Journal of Policy History and the Arizona State University Center for American Institutions are hosting the Policy History Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina at the Hilton Charlotte Uptown hotel from Wednesday, June 4 to Saturday, June 7, 2025.

We are pleased to announce the following plenary sessions

Thursday, June 5
Richard Bensel, Cornell University
Jennifer Burns, Stanford University
Richard John, Columbia University

Friday, June 6
Daniel Tichenor, University of Oregon

Since 2002, the Policy History Conference has provided an interdisciplinary forum for presentations and roundtable discussions on policy history topics and recent policy history research. The conferences bring together academy scholars, independent scholars and graduate students to share their research. Many of the papers presented eventually appear in academic journals and other publications.

We are currently accepting panel and paper proposals on all topics regarding American political and policy history, political development, and comparative historical analysis. Complete sessions, including two or three presenters with chair/commentator(s), and individual paper proposals are welcome. Participants may only appear once as a presenter in the program.

The deadline for submission is December 31, 2024.  Proposals for panels and papers must be submitted online at the links below, and must include the following:

1. Name(s)
2. Institutional Affiliation(s)
3. Status (i.e. ABD, Doctoral Student, Assistant/Associate/Full Professor)
4. Email address(es)
5. Mailing Address(es)
6. Panel and paper title(s)
7. One (1) 150 word abstract of panel and papers in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
8. A description of each presenter or panel participant including educational background, major publications, awards or fellowships, also in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Submit paper proposals here.  Submit panel proposals here.

Cox on the Invention of Immigration Exceptionalism

Adam B. Cox, NYU Law, has published The Invention of Immigration Exceptionalism in the Yale Law Journal:

American immigration law is a domain where ordinary constitutional rules have never applied. At least, that is the conventional wisdom. Immigration law’s exceptionalism is widely believed to flow directly from the Supreme Court’s invention, in the late nineteenth century, of the so-called plenary power doctrine. On the standard account, that doctrine has long insulated immigration policies from constitutional scrutiny. The plenary power doctrine is thought to permit everything from President Trump’s Muslim ban to the indefinite detention of migrants at the border.

But the reigning historical account of immigration exceptionalism is wrong. Revisiting the field’s canonical cases, this Article reveals that the plenary power doctrine lawyers and judges argue over today was not created in a series of late nineteenth-century cases. Far from being exceptional, those cases applied the then-standard framework linking due process and the separation of powers. By failing to understand that nineteenth-century immigration law was ordinary public law, scholars and jurists have, for decades, badly misunderstood immigration law’s foundational cases. We have also overlooked the role that immigration law played in the development of modern public law. At the turn of the twentieth century, immigration law evolved apace with the rest of public law as both underwent a dramatic transformation. In some cases, immigration law even led the revolution, driving the development of the legal regime we now call “administrative law.”

Immigration exceptionalism is thus a recent invention. Indeed, it might be more accurate to say that the immigration plenary power doctrine was invented in the Roberts Court rather than in the late nineteenth century. Once we locate immigration exceptionalism in its proper moment, we can better appreciate immigration law’s centrality to the development of American public law. We can also assemble new arguments against the modern exceptionalism that is responsible for the very worst parts of immigration law today.

--Dan Ernst

Ankersen on Sea Turtle Conservation Law

Tom Ankersen, University of Florida Levin College of Law, has posted, in three parts, "Not for Long a Fishe: The Early History of Sea Turtle Conservation Law and Policy in Florida":

Shipping Green Turtle, Key West, 1898 (NYPL)

[Part I] reviews the broad history during the colonial era and then focuses on some of the first laws Florida’s territorial and early statehood years, when sea turtles were considered a fishery. By the end of the 19th century and continuing into the 20th century, the State’s sea turtle population had declined significantly due to over-harvest and a poor understanding of the species biology.  In 1897, a federally commissioned Fisheries Report sounded the alarm.  The Florida Legislation acted on one of the report’s conclusions, leading to the first law to protect nesting sea turtles in the state in 1907.

[Part II] tracks the efforts of the Florida Legislature to establish and regulate a managed fishery through county-specific legislation in the first half of the 20th century, and documents the early efforts to understand the late-maturing and highly migratory animal’s life history. With little understanding of sea turtle biology and behavior, the State attempted to maintain a viable sea turtle fishery during this period, with little success.  In the 1950s, Dr. Archie Carr from the University of Florida laid the foundation for sea turtle science, along with a handful of other pioneering researchers.  Carr founded the first advocacy group devoted to sea turtle conservation, which he and the founders called the “Brotherhood of the Green Turtle.” This advocacy group would eventually become the Sea Turtle Conservancy.

[Part III concludes the series.]  Not without controversy, the 1970s brought an end to the sea turtle fishery in Florida, and along with it the classification of sea turtles as legally endangered. In this era, both international and federal law began to play a role in how sea turtles were legally treated by the State of Florida.

--Dan Ernst

Phillips-Sawyer on the Labor Exemption and Extraterritoriality in Antitrust

Laura Phillips-Sawyer, University of Georgia School of Law, has posted two papers.  The first is  Restructuring American Antitrust Law: Institutionalist Economics and the Antitrust Labor Immunity, 1890-1940s, which appeared last year in the University of Chicago Law Review:

Thurman W. Arnold (LC)

 Labor unions and their leaders were cast as the perennial antitrust defendants for the first fifty years of federal antitrust law, and this historic imbalance fostered a movement in economic scholarship and labor activism to restructure American antitrust law. The progressive liberal-institutionalist movement in economics played an important role in legitimizing trade unions by recasting them, not as anticompetitive cartels, but rather as a necessary corollary to the growing market power of industrial firms. Louis Brandeis, the litigator and future jurist, drew from institutionalists’ work to support antitrust reform. He argued that antitrust law was not necessarily anathema to the interest of labor organizations, and he advocated for both the application of the rule of reason to labor association activities and the revision of antitrust laws to exempt certain labor activities. The Clayton Act of 1914 created such an antitrust labor exemption, but as soon as union activity spilled over into interstate commerce the Supreme Court insisted on antitrust liability and applied it categorically against laborers. Even after the passage of additional labor exemptions in the 1930s, the reigning Commerce Clause doctrine rendered labor’s immunity from antitrust liability uncertain. This lingering uncertainty was exacerbated by a fracturing within the progressive liberal movement as some economic institutionalists, schooled in the legal realist tradition, revived the Department of Justice’s antitrust prosecutions in the late 1930s. Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold led this renewed antitrust agenda; armed with a more expansive interpretation of federal commerce power, he targeted labor groups in several headline-grabbing cases, enraging his former allies on the Left. Arnold, however, seemed to represent a divergent institutionalism that embraced both the Brandeisian distaste for economic concentration and the Keynesian macroeconomic policies of mass consumption. Ultimately, in 1941, an uneasy settlement was reached in United States v. Hutcheson, where the Supreme Court authorized a non-statutory labor exemption for secondary boycotts. The ruling helped establish guardrails for lawful labor union activities; however, it did not resolve this division on the progressive Left, and laborers continued to seek protective legislation and statutory immunities. Recasting antitrust law’s bias against laborers as historically contingent demonstrates the moments of possibility to reconcile this historic imbalance, and it implicitly argues that the progressive law and economics movement provided necessary groundwork but also required interest group organization and statutory interventions.

The second is Jurisdiction Beyond Our Borders: United States v. Alcoa and the Extraterritorial Reach of American Antitrust, 1909-1945:

In 1945 Judge Learned Hand wrote one of the most influential opinions in modern antitrust law. In declaring that the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) had illegally monopolized the industry for virgin aluminum and had participated in an illegal international cartel, Hand both revived and extended American antitrust law. The ruling is famous for several reasons: It narrowly defined the relevant market in favor of the government; it expanded the category of impermissible dominant firm conduct; it interpreted congressional intent as protecting an egalitarian business environment; and it established the extraterritorial reach of US antitrust laws. Although each of those contributions has incited legal commentary and critique, Hand’s decision to redraw the territorial application of US antitrust has remained largely unexamined. This essay offers a historical explanation for the origins of antitrust extraterritoriality and advances two arguments: First, before and during the interwar years, the antitrust doctrine of strict territoriality had been eroded through a series of distinguishing cases and contradictory congressional policies. Second, the well-documented connection between European fascism and cartelization provided strong external pressures to extend American antitrust law and policy abroad and to redouble anticartel and antimonopoly provisions at home. Thus, both internal and external pressures culminated in the Alcoa case, which signaled a new era in American antitrust law—renewing both anticartel and anti-monopolization policy while at the same time linking market competition to the protection of American territorial and popular sovereignty. By 1945 extraterritorial antitrust emerged as an acceptable means of governance to curtail international cartel behavior, discipline monopolies at home, and impose an American-led liberal—and hegemonic—internationalism on its trade partners.

--Dan Ernst