Duncan Hosie argues in his Essay that Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Vasquez Perdomo incorrectly interprets precedent, employing “factual revisionism.” Read more about this theory and its implications for federal immigration enforcement here:
In her Essay, @maureenebrady.com posits the Supreme Court has a level-of-generality problem in cases like Wolford v. Lopez and Bruen. Brady argues courts should be transparent about how their choices reintroduce means-ends reasoning. Read more here: review.law.stanford.edu/online/prope...
In a Note, Cristian Pleters warns that a recent spate of injunctions issued in the first instance by federal courts of appeals rest on questionable statutory grounds and, much like universal injunctions, accelerate and degrade judicial output.
In the second Article, @tyang.bsky.social uncovers the phenomenon of “prison grievance creep,” arguing that the prison grievance system acts as both a procedural shield for prisons and a substantive weapon that intrudes into constitutional rights-making and remedies.
In the first Article, José Argueta Funes reconstructs property reform in nineteenth-century Hawai'i to explore how legal origin stories influence which property claims are considered valid and which economic activities receive preferential treatment.
Volume 78, Issue 4 is now live on our website!
Stanford Law Review Online is now accepting short essays for a special collection on Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Civil Rights. We look forward to reviewing your submissions! stanford-law-review-online.scholasticahq.com/for-authors
Stanford Law Review Online is seeking short essays for a special collection on Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Civil Rights. Submissions open April 3-May 1, 2026. Scholars, practitioners, industry experts, and policymakers welcome!
review.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/u...
In the second Note, Bella M. Ryb argues that the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense privatizes the adjudication of a civil right, ignoring sexual harassment's essential harm as a violation of a victim’s civil rights. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
In the first Note, Larissa Bersh warns that the unintended overbreadth of DMCA § 1202 threatens generative AI development and proposes an identicality requirement to cabin liability to LLM outputs that exactly match training data. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
In the second Article, Kyle D. Logue, W. Robert Thomas & Jeffery Y. Zhang propose a new liability regime to deter bank runs: a civil penalty designed to disgorge compensation from negligent bank executives. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
In the first Article, Brittany Farr analyzes 152 antebellum appellate cases to reveal how warranties of soundness intervened in the violence of slavery, arguing that contract doctrine accommodated this violence while shaping the very forms it took. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
Volume 78, Issue 3 is now live on our website!
On February 27 and 28, the Stanford Law Review will bring together scholars, practitioners, and judges to discuss the future of administrative law and seismic shifts in executive power. The Symposium is open to the public. To learn more and register, visit www.stanfordlawreview.org/symposium/v78/.
Thrilled that my article Private Governance and Originalism will be published in the Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social! The article explains why private groups including schools, corps & other orgs create unique challenges (and opportunities) under originalist "history & tradition" tests
In a Note, Marissa C. Uri argues that courts should apply a presumption of dismissal under Rule 19 when private plaintiffs challenge tribal gaming compacts but attempt to circumvent tribal sovereign immunity. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
In the fourth Article, John M. Newman challenges the "techno-deterministic" view of attention markets, arguing that contract, property, antitrust, and tax laws have systematically channeled human activity into attention capitalism. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
In the third Article, Allison Orr Larsen identifies a risky new phenomenon of "historical precedents," where overwhelmed lower courts treat a prior judge’s assertions about history as binding authority. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
In the second Article, Brandon L. Garrett & @adamgershowitz.bsky.social analyze over 100 Brady decisions, revealing that courts frequently use "guilt-based” reasoning to dismiss suppressed evidence as immaterial, ignoring how jurors actually weigh evidence. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
In the first Article, @lucaenriques.bsky.social, Matteo Gatti & Roy Shapira argue that the "CS3D-Caremark cocktail"—a mix of EU sustainability regulation and Delaware oversight duties—may force U.S. corporations to reshape their global production standards. www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/articl...
Volume 78, Issue 2 is now live on our website!
SLR's submission portal for publication in Volume 79 is now open! We look forward to reviewing your submissions. stanford-law-review.scholasticahq.com/for-authors
SLRO will open for submissions on our website and Scholastica on Thursday, January 29, at 9:00 AM PT. Please see our website for more information. We look forward to reviewing submissions on a rolling basis!
Stanford Law Review’s winter submission cycle and our Scholastica submission portal will open on Monday, January 26, 2026 at 8 PM PST. We look forward to reviewing submissions on a rolling basis!
In a Note, Gregory D. Schwartz (SLS ‘25) analyzes a gap in antitrust enforcement regarding "gullible" pricing algorithms, which allow sellers to reliably collude on accident and mimic competitors without human agreement.
In the third Article, Jacob S. Sherkow & Paul R. Gugliuzza critique the Federal Circuit’s "infringement-by-label" theory, arguing that treating drug labels as if they were patent claims ignores medical reality and threatens generic competition.
In the second Article, Laura Savarese argues that constitutional family rights were forged in a forgotten wave of late 19th-century habeas litigation, where parents challenged state removal in the name of child welfare.
In the first Article, Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash uncovers the overlooked Inconvenience Doctrine, revealing a widespread Founding-era practice of weighing consequences to decode the law.
Volume 78, Issue 1 is now live on our website!