Dru Stevenson, Professor of Law

 Imagine, for a moment, that you are a partner at a busy law firm. You have a massive brief due by the end of the week, and you need a junior associate to draft a research memo. In a perfectly free market, you would walk out to the bullpen, find an associate, and start haggling. You’d negotiate the hourly rate for this specific task, draft a quick contract, and then spend the rest of the week nervously monitoring them to make sure they actually did the work instead of playing solitaire. Sounds exhausting, right? Yet, according to pure, unadulterated free-market economic theory, that is exactly how the world should work. Free markets are incredibly efficient. We are told that independent, rational actors negotiating prices is the best way to allocate resources. So, if the free market is so perfect, why do we have companies at all? Why do we have these massive, top-down, command-and-control institutions where people don't negotiate, but simply follow orders? In my Law & Economic...

In the early 1900s, an elderly aristocratic man living in Russia was observing the rising tide of political unrest around him. He noticed that young dissidents, eager for change, were increasingly arming themselves against the government's police force. They believed that to protect themselves, and to be taken seriously, they needed weapons. But the old man saw a fatal flaw in their logic. He began writing essays arguing a completely counterintuitive point: bringing a weapon to a standoff doesn't protect you; it makes you a target. He warned that the moment a dissident picks up a gun, they validate the tyrant’s use of violence. They trade their most powerful weapon—moral asymmetry—for a game they will ultimately lose. His contemporaries thought he was hopelessly naive. But one of his essays found its way to a young, relatively unknown lawyer organizing protests in South Africa. The young lawyer read it, abandoned his initial thoughts of armed resistance, and went on to change t...

We like to think of the law as a set of firm, historical facts. You either committed a crime, or you didn't. You either qualify for a right, or you are disqualified. But right now, the Department of Justice is grappling with a much more "revelatory" question: Can the law predict the future? In July 2025, the DOJ proposed new rules to revive the long-dormant gun rights restoration program under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The core of this program hinges on a single, heavy word: Dangerousness . If a person with a prior disqualifying record wants their rights restored, they must prove they are no longer "dangerous." The Rest of the Story The surprise isn't that we are asking the question—it’s how we are trying to answer it. We are moving away from mere "gut feelings" by judges and toward a sophisticated, albeit controversial, blend of clinical art and data science. In a recent piece I wrote for the Duke Second Thoughts blog (which was also cross-posted on t...

 We’ve all heard the complaints—and perhaps made them ourselves. Whether it's during a campaign season or a frustrating afternoon at a government office, the refrain is always the same: "Why can't the government just run like a business?" We imagine a world where a leader could simply snap their fingers and make the "trains run on time." We crave the streamlined efficiency of a CEO who can pivot a company in a single afternoon. In our civic imagination, "checks and balances" often feel like nothing more than red tape and gridlock. But what if I told you that the Founding Fathers were actually some of history’s most brilliant (if accidental) economists? The Monopoly Problem In a traditional market, we loathe monopolies. Why? Because without competition, there is no incentive to improve quality or lower prices. A monopolist becomes unresponsive and self-centered. As it turns out, the same is true in politics. A political monopoly—an autocracy or a d...

  🏛️ New: The Complete Administrative Law Lecture Series is Now Public I am pleased to announce the public availability of the complete Administrative Law lecture series for the Fall 2025 semester. This series includes 46 new videos posted in the last seven months, covering the core principles of the administrative state and essential topics for the bar exam and legal practice. The videos cover the full spectrum of agency power, including rulemaking, adjudication, and the critical role of judicial review. As a Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law Houston (STCL), this is the definitive, up-to-date guide for current legal analysis. Why This Content is Essential Now (H2) The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have fundamentally reshaped the landscape of Administrative Law, making new, up-to-date analysis essential for students and practitioners alike. This series includes new videos focused on: ⚖️ Statutory Interpretation and Deference (H3) New analysis on the Chevron doct...

My latest academic article published - Revisiting the Original Congressional Debates About the Second Amendment - #2A Thanks to the editors at Missouri Law Review for editing/publishing it. Read/download here: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol88/iss2/9/

 I posted a new article about Operation Choke Point on SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4292272  Operation Choke Point: Myths and Reality