Although millions of Americans live in 55-plus age-restricted housing, little research has been done to determine whether these communities benefit their residents, or the nation as a whole. This is particularly ironic because these communities exist in contravention to anti-discrimination laws by virtue of a specific exemption granted to real estate developers by an Act of Congress. Ordinarily age discrimination is prohibited by the Fair Housing Act, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Successful lobbying by special interest groups carved out an exemption for 55-plus housing.

The original exemption required developers to offer elders special services and facilities in these communities in return for the exemption. Over time, those requirements were eliminated and now the only requirement is that these communities exclude families and children. While lifestyles focused on golf and tennis may be attractive to younger retirees, older Americans often find themselves in communities bereft of the services and facilities they need for basic life activities and safety. The very nature of these communities result in elders left with depreciating homes, and many are without the financial means to retrofit their 55-plus home or to move into a community better adapted for their needs. This Article explores a popular form of “senior housing” that is unsuitable for most older Americans.

The First Amendment and its associational rights and freedoms are not tested by popular groups or causes. Only controversy can help establish the limits of constitutional rights. Fraternities and sororities (“fraternities”) have certainly been controversial during their 236 years of existence.

Colleges often regulate fraternities more strictly than any other organization. Fraternity members may be barred from wearing their letters or mentioning their affinity during certain times of the year. Recruitment of new members is generally permitted only at certain times and in certain ways. Fraternity members may be required to engage in philanthropy or maintain a specific grade point average, where unaffiliated students have no such requirement. And many colleges have banned entire fraternity systems, while encouraging substantially similar themed dormitory housing, or fraternity-like living arrangement controlled by the school. At some point these restrictions certainly must violate the associational freedoms in the First Amendment.

Two recent Supreme Court cases suggest that there is a greater freedom of association for college fraternities than has been previously recognized by lower courts. This article discusses in great detail the history of fraternities and the freedom of association. The article discusses and critiques every relevant case and analyzes existing case law in light of Christian Legal Society and Citizens United. The article concludes by suggesting that these two Supreme Court cases may have opened a new path for fraternities to assert their associational freedoms under the First Amendment.

In 2005, Macy's bought its largest competitor, May Department Stores, for $17 billion. The resulting combination created a department store behemoth with over one thousand stores across the United States. Despite protests by the attorneys general of a number of states, and consumers and advocacy groups around the country, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") blessed this merger without requiring any modification in its terms. And according to law and economics scholars, this merger had no substantive impact on consumers, competition or consumer welfare.

My empirical research, published in an earlier law review article, showed that Macy's now charges consumers 13% more than it did before the merger, and was featured in a page one New York Times article. My empirical research, however, was an observation. This article tells the heart of a very compelling story behind that empirical research and critically analyzes important legal questions. Department stores are an important part of the fabric of American life. For example, more than two years after Macy's changed the name of all Marshall Field's stores in Chicago, people are still picketing the store - in fact they led a large protest at Macy's most recent annual stock holder's meeting. Barely a day goes by without a major newspaper featuring a story on the plight of American department stores and consumer angst over these destructive changes.

The FTC, which investigated Macy's acquisition of May, may have erred. This article explains the relevant history of department stores, analyzes the FTC's flawed investigation of the deal, and critiques the narrowly applied law and economics analysis that led to these incorrect conclusions.

In 2005, Federated Department Stores, which does business as Macy's and Bloomingdales, acquired May Company Department Stores for $17 billion. Federal antitrust regulators took no action against this merger and in fact released an unprecedented statement explaining the decision to permit the merger.

State antitrust regulators demanded that Federated sell approximately 20% of the former May stores, including branches of L.S. Ayres, Marshall Field, Lord & Taylor, Filenes, Hecht and Strawbridge & Clothier. In the fall of 2006, Federated sold the remaining Lord & Taylor stores to a private investment group. Substantially all of the stores remaining with Federated were converted to the Macy's nameplate; a few were converted to Bloomingdales.

The Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) decision that this merger did not substantially lessen competition under the Clayton Act raises important questions.

First, the FTC suggested there was no antitrust product market comprised of conventional department stores, or middle-market department stores. Numerous retail studies, the department stores' own market studies and the common sense experience of most consumers suggest otherwise.

Second, FTC's unusual public statement listed reasons that the merger would not substantially lessen competition. Many of these reasons do not stand up to closer scrutiny.

Third, through an empirical study created for this article that compares prices before and after the merger, Federated appears to have significantly raised prices throughout the United States.

For these reasons, it is likely that the Federated/May merger did in fact substantially lessen competition in the conventional department store market.

This essay analyzes the June 2007 Supreme Court decision of Leegin v. PSKS. That case overruled a 96 year old Supreme Court case, Dr. Miles v. Park & Sons. The Leegin case eliminated Dr. Miles' per se rule in antitrust for minimum resale price maintenance between manufacturers and retailers. The essay examines the history and controversy of Dr. Miles, acts of Congress to circumvent and then restore Dr. Miles, the controversy over the Leegin case, and likely outcomes in the future.

The body of laws intended to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive acts and practices originated from a common body with the antitrust laws. Today, the Federal Trade Commission uses the same sentence of the same statute (Section 5 of the FTC Act) to enforce both its consumer protection and antitrust missions. Most state consumer protection laws specifically state that the laws are to be enforced in a manner consistent with both FTC and federal precedent. Yet many state courts, when considering a case of first impression in consumer protection, do not look to the antitrust laws for at least persuasive precedent. This has led to inexplicable results. Most notably for licensed professionals, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that the antitrust laws apply to licensed professionals; nonetheless, in a number of states, citing no relevant precedent except the original anomalous decision, consumer protection laws have been held to exempt licensed professionals.

When small liberal arts colleges, particularly those in the Northeastern United States, abolish fraternities and sororities, they may be violating the antitrust laws. Additionally, by removing what may be the only viable competitor for room and board services for students in the small towns that host these liberal arts colleges, these schools are then free to raise room and board prices, at least to the level of their most expensive competitor. Since small liberal arts colleges in the Northeast are typicall the most expensive colleges in the country, and since their charges are outliers for all colleges, these increases in room and board prices may provide cover for increases in colleges across the United States.