These are editorials, not sources. Your first article is a Washington Post columnist arguing that the Feds have chosen not to pursue anti-trust cases because they've been taken over by Milton Friedman's minions. It's basically arguing that new laws are required to compel the justice department to act. What we have here is an example of the justice department acting - for all the wrong reasons, but acting - so it's mooted. Your second is a position paper describing the statistical prevalence of Supreme Court interpretations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Neither of them say "nothing can be done without new laws and new precedent." The first one says "nothing WILL be done without new laws" (but it was done anyway) and the second one says "this is a new precedent."