Bloomberg's Matt Levine — whose bio says "He has worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and a mergers and acquisitions lawyer at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz...spent a year clerking for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and taught high school Latin... has a bachelor's degree in classics from Harvard University and a law degree from Yale Law School" — has written a couple of mostly smart and interesting pieces lately about insider trading enforcement and law.
The most recent one, about the Supreme Court's decision to take up the issue, is here:
I've tried to explain insider trading in terms of concepts like "research" and "cheating" that appear nowhere in the law. Because there is barely any law: just a general prohibition against the use of "any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance" in securities trading, and a long series of court decisions interpreting some kinds of insider trading as a violation of that prohibition. Insider trading is illegal if and when it is "manipulative or deceptive," and it is "manipulative or deceptive" to the extent that our -- or rather, some judges' -- intuition says that it is cheating. You could imagine that judges who believe in the rule of law, and in the requirement that people should know in advance what the law is before they are sent to prison for breaking it, would find this an unsatisfactory state of affairs
An earlier one, about Steve Cohen's settlement with the SEC, is here: "I think it is fair to say that prosecutors, and the SEC enforcement staff, take rather a stricter view of insider trading law than, you know, the law does."