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/.
My paper, Habeas and the 1948 Judicial Code, is forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review (@stanlrev.bsky.social).
I argue that the 1948 Judicial Code, not the 1867 Habeas Corpus Act, should be the statutory focus for inquiry into the scope of habeas review.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
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!
Expanding public-carry regimes challenge Terry’s reasonable-suspicion standard. In some states, suspected gun possession alone can’t justify stops. @ahochmanbloom.bsky.social warns an emerging “firearm exceptionalism” sustains racialized, hindsight-based policing.
In this SLRO Essay, @fredhalbhuber.bsky.social traces the APA’s “set aside” instruction to 19th-century state codes where courts vacated orders universally—not just as to the parties—and shows that the APA inherits this tradition that authorizes universal vacatur.
After Dobbs, the right to contraception appears uncertain—but in this SLRO essay, Deborah Tuerkheimer argues the greater threats lie beyond the Court. Funding cuts, parental and conscience-based claims, and misinformation are eroding access even as formal protections remain.
In discussion with @theregreview.bsky.social, Matthew J. Sanders discusses his forthcoming SLR article on the “little-known but highly consequential” administrative-remand rule. Sanders will present his work as a part of SLR's 2026 Admin Law Symposium. www.theregreview.org/2025/09/21/s...
SLRO will open for submissions on our website and Scholastica on Monday, September 15, at 5:00 PM PT. Please see our website for more information. We look forward to reviewing submissions on a rolling basis! review.law.stanford.edu/submissions/...
8/8 In our final Essay, Samuel Bray and James Pfander discuss universal injunctions. In this adversarial collaboration they explain where equitable tradition guides them to agree and where sharp differences remain. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/remed...
7/8 What limits are there to the President’s removal power? In this adversarial collaboration, Aditya Bamzai and Peter Shane trace this debate from the First Congress and offer dueling views on what that says about the executive’s powers today. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/the-r...
6/8 Sonia Mittal, a senior Jan. 6 prosecutor, details firings and demotions inside DOJ. She warns these actions reflect an effort to “capture the referees,” a playbook for authoritarian control through politicized law enforcement. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/execu...
