Stanford Law Review

Rule 19 and Tribal Representation in Indian Gaming Litigation | Stanford Law Review

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...

Attention Capitalism: The Law and Political Economy of Attention Markets | Stanford Law Review

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...

Is History Precedent? | Stanford Law Review

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...

The <em>Brady</em> Materiality Standard | Stanford Law Review

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

Online Essay Submissions | Stanford Law Review

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!

Anticompetitive Interdependence in “Gullible” Pricing Algorithms | Stanford Law Review

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.

Infringement by Drug Label | Stanford Law Review

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.

The Origins of Family Rights and Family Regulation: A Dual Legal History | Stanford Law Review

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.

The Inconvenience Doctrine | Stanford Law Review

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!

The Emerging Firearms Hypocrisy of <em>Terry</em>: The Fifth Circuit in <em>United States v. Wilson</em> | Stanford Law Review Terry v. Ohio’s flexible reasonable-suspicion rule is colliding with the post-Bruen expansion of public carry. In United States v. Wilson, the Fifth

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.

A Remedy Inherited: State Law, Universal Vacatur, and the Meaning of “Set Aside” | Stanford Law Review Introduction This past June, in a decision already heralded as marking a “landmark shift in administrative law,” the Supreme Court in Trump v. CA

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.

Threats to Contraception | Stanford Law Review Many question the future of the right to contraception after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but Deborah Tuerkheimer argues that the m

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.

The Power of Procedure in Environmental Law | The Regulatory Review Matthew J. Sanders explores the importance of procedure in the evolving environmental law landscape.

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...

Online Essay Submissions | Stanford Law Review

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/...

Remedies in the First Hundred Days of Trump II: A Gently Adversarial Collaboration | Stanford Law Review In Trump’s second term, courts face mounting pressure to issue broad, sweeping remedies in response to clear executive overreach. While Samuel Bray

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...

The Removal Question: A Timeline and Summary of the Legal Arguments | Stanford Law Review Aditya Bamzai and Peter Shane trace the enduring debate of the President’s removal power. Together they provide a comprehensive yet succinct history

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...

Executive Branch Attacks on January 6 Prosecutors: A Notable Case of Democratic Backsliding | Stanford Law Review Sonia Mittal–a senior January 6 prosecutor–details the firings, demotions, and investigations of DOJ prosecutors. Mittal argues these executive ac

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...

Due Process or the Rule of Law? Americans Speak a Different Legal Language | Stanford Law Review Drawing on global political histories, Diego Zambrano explores why many democracies abroad rally around “the rule of law,” while Americans reach i

1/8 ‪Diego Zambrano‬ observes that while other democracies rally around “the rule of law,” Americans invoke “due process.” He argues the distinction is more than just words and may leave Americans unprepared to spot and resist democratic backsliding.
www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/due-p...

How a Rule 23(b)(2) Class Action Could Save Law Firms from Trump | Stanford Law Review As Trump targets law firms with punitive executive orders, firms face a familiar dilemma: all would benefit from resistance, but acting alone may risk

5/8 Targeted by Trump’s executive orders, law firms face a collective action dilemma: risk resisting alone or capitulate. @nora-engstrom.bsky.social, Jonah Gelbach & David Marcus detail how the profession can confront executive overreach as a class. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/how-a...

National Security or Nothing to See? Clearances as the Site of Executive Overreach | Stanford Law Review Can courts review the President’s retaliatory decision to revoke security clearances? In this Essay, Stanford J.D. Candidate Shreeya Singh argues Su

4/8 Can courts review a president’s retaliatory revocation of a security clearance? Shreeya Singh (SLS ‘27) argues Supreme Court precedent supports review, but a recent ruling may shield such actions from scrutiny under the guise of national security. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/natio...

Trumpian Impoundments in Historical Perspective | Stanford Law Review Reviving Nixon-era arguments, the Trump Administration claims the power to unilaterally withhold congressionally appropriated funds. In this Essay, Za

3/8 Reviving Nixon-era arguments, Trump claimed power to block funds Congress had already approved. In this Essay, Zachary Price dismantles the constitutional and practical cases for presidential impoundment. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/trump...

Leveraging Institutions: Imposing Unconstitutional Constraints on Individual Speech through State and Private Organizations | Stanford Law Review President Trump has leveraged federal funds to induce private entities, like universities, to suppress individuals’ free speech. Bernadette Meyler p

2/8 Bernadette Meyler argues courts should expand the “independent constitutional bar” test to federal funds granted to private entities. Otherwise, government suppression of free speech by proxy of private entities may escape accountability. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/lever...

Stanford Law Review Online | Stanford Law Review

SLR Online Special Symposium Essays are now available on our website! We have 8 Essays about executive actions, constitutional boundaries, and the rule of law in Trump II. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/

SLR’s summer submission cycle and our Scholastica portal open tomorrow, July 18, at 5:00 PM PT! We look forward to reviewing your submissions!

SLR’s summer submission cycle will open on Friday, July 18, at 5:00 PM PT. We will be accepting general submissions as well as submissions for our Symposium Issue—The APA at Eighty: What’s Next for Administrative Law? We look forward to reviewing submissions on a rolling basis!