Now: The Sherman Act is still used, but with more laws added to support it, like the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. It has helped break up some big companies and stop unfair business deals. Yes, it protects the competition. Today, people still support the idea of fair competition. The law is used in court to stop big tech companies or large mergers that might hurt the market. Some think it needs to be updated for modern businesses, like internet companies.

One struggle is that it’s sometimes hard to prove a company is breaking the law, especially with new technology. Ex. Some people think companies like Amazon or Google are too powerful, but it’s hard to prove they broke the law under the old rules.

Now: The civil rights act is still in force today and forms the foundation of modern civil rights law. Overtime, it hsa been expanded by other laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title IX for gender equality in education. Yes, largely the law ended legal segregation and gave the federal government tools to enforce civil rights. Most Americans view the Civil Rights Act as a turning point in the U.S. history. However, some believe that more work is needed to address ongoing issues like systematic racism, voter suppression, and economic inequality. Today, the Civil Rights Act is the legal backbone for fighting discrimination in schools, workplaces.

A modern example of a struggle is the voter ID laws and gerrymandering have been criticized as ways to suppress minority votes-issues the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1965 tried to fix.

Now: The securities Act of 1933 is still in effect today and works alongside the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which was created the SEC to enforce these laws. The original Act has been expanded by later laws like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Dodd-Frank Act. Yes, the law does what it said it would do for the most part. The securities Act made the U.S. markets safer and more trustworthy. Most investors, financial professionals, and economists agree the Act is essential. It sets the groundwork for fair trading and is part of why the U.S. has one of the most stable financial markets in the world.

Yes, there are a few struggles such as cost and complexity, loopholes, and fraud.

Now: The Clean Air Act is still one of the most powerful environmental laws in the world. It’s been amended to address new challenges, like climate change and greenhouse gases. The 1990 amendments added tougher controls on emissions and created a market-based system for trading pollution credits, like with sulfur dioxide. Yes, mostly the law has done what it is supposed to do because it has. The Clean Air Act has improved air quality dramatically in U.S. cities, reduced acid rain and lead in the air, and saved millions of lives and prevented illnesses like asthma and heart disease. Most people see the Act as a huge success and a model for global environmental regulation. Environmentalists praise it for its life-saving impact, while businesses sometimes argue that compliance can be costly and complicated. The Act continues to evolve with science and technology by regulating emissions from vehicles and power plants and climate change through carbon limits.

Yes, there are ongoing challenges such as political pushback (environmental regulations are often rolled back or weakened depending on the administration), industry resistance (some companies lobby against stricter rules, claiming it hurts profits and job growth), and unequal impact: (pollution still disproportionately affects low-income communities and communities of color).

Now: The Privacy Act is still in place and governs how federal agencies handle personal data. However, technology has evolved dramatically since 1974, and the law hasn’t kept pace with modern digital privacy needs. For example, the Act doesn’t address internet tracking, social media, or private sector data collection. Newer laws and regulations have been created to fill in the gaps (like the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and agency-specific rules).Yes, for the most part the law does what it said it would do. It increased government accountability and gave individuals more control over their data held by federal agencies. It also improved data security standards within the federal government. However, it didn’t anticipate digital data and doesn’t apply to state governments or private companies. Privacy advocates appreciate the Act as a first step toward data rights, but many argue it’s outdated. Today, the Act still functions as a core privacy law for federal agencies, often used when people file Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or seek to correct government-held records.

Yes, there are some struggles such as limited scope (only applies to federal agencies—not to corporations, state agencies, or online platforms), loopholes (some information can still be shared without consent for law enforcement or national security reasons), outdated framework (doesn’t account for cloud storage, algorithms, biometric data, or social media tracking).

Now: Dodd-Frank is still in effect but has faced some rollbacks over the years. In 2018, Congress loosened some rules for smaller and mid-sized banks, arguing that the regulations were too burdensome. Yes, largely the law did what it said it would do as in it helping stabilize the financial system, made banks more accountable, and created real protections for consumers. People's reactions are mixed. Today, Dodd-Frank is part of the backbone of U.S. financial regulation. The CFPB continues to investigate and fine companies that deceive consumers, and large banks are subject to regular “stress tests” to ensure they won’t collapse during economic downturns.

Yes, there are some struggles to this act such as complexity (the Act is massive, with over 2,300 pages, making it difficult to implement fully and consistently), smaller banks struggle (some smaller financial institutions say the compliance costs are too high), political target (different administrations have tried to weaken or strengthen parts of it, making its future uncertain).