UChicago Law Review

David Wang investigates the proper threshold test for prisoner free exercise claims and explains why the sincerity threshold test is preferable to the alternative based on screening ability, adherence to judicial capacity, and workability.

Brandon Stras explains why corporations can be pardoned, why the President would exercise this power, and how Congress can respond.

Luke Henkel outlines ten "plus factors," drawn from antitrust law, that can prove quid pro quo bribery via circumstantial evidence in light of Snyder v. United States.

Katrina T. Goto explains how the Supreme Court’s deferential view of prison grievance systems colored its interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and examines the challenges faced by lower courts and plaintiffs attempting to navigate the doctrine.

@deborahnarcher.bsky.social & Joseph R. Schottenfeld draw on public nuisance and common law torts to propose a community equity framework that recognizes the collective harms imposed on Black communities by inequitable public infrastructure and development.

Professor @sonofdavid.bsky.social examines why recent state constitutional bans on prison slavery have yet to change conditions on the ground, and outlines the interpretive and structural work required to realize their promise.

Volume 92.8 is now live, featuring pieces by @sonofdavid.bsky.social; @deborahnarcher.bsky.social & Joseph R. Schottenfeld; Katrina T. Goto; Luke Henkel; Brandon Stras; and David Wang. You can find them all here: lawreview.uchicago.edu.

Ryan Jain-Liu traces the evolution of U.S. bankruptcy law to show how its increasingly federal and remedial character illustrates when historical development can justify applying the complete preemption doctrine to new contexts.

Brady Earley introduces a data-driven approach to the Free Exercise Clause, arguing that lawmakers can use difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis to ground religious accommodation laws in evidence rather than assumption.

@richardre.bsky.social argues that U.S. legal culture is undergoing a “realignment,” as conservatives in power increasingly embrace judicial discretion while liberals out of power turn toward restraint.

Yaron Covo argues that disability rights law has become “contractualized”—its civil rights guarantees reshaped by contract doctrines that erode protections and equality under statutes meant to safeguard vulnerable groups.

@curtbradley.bsky.social recovers the “concomitants of nationality” idea in U.S. constitutional law—the presumption, traced through Curtiss-Wright, that the nation inherited the full range of sovereign powers recognized under international law, even when not in the constitutional text.

Volume 92.7 is now live, featuring pieces by @curtbradley.bsky.social; Yaron Covo; @richardre.bsky.social; Brady Earley; and Ryan Jain-Liu. You can find them all here: lawreview.uchicago.edu.

Ryan Jain-Liu traces the evolution of U.S. bankruptcy law to show how its increasingly federal and remedial character illustrates when historical development can justify applying the complete preemption doctrine to new contexts.

Brady Earley introduces a data-driven approach to the Free Exercise Clause, arguing that lawmakers can use difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis to ground religious accommodation laws in evidence rather than assumption.

@richardre.bsky.social argues that U.S. legal culture is undergoing a “realignment,” as conservatives in power increasingly embrace judicial discretion while liberals out of power turn toward restraint.

Yaron Covo argues that disability rights law has become “contractualized”—its civil rights guarantees reshaped by contract doctrines that erode protections and equality under statutes meant to safeguard vulnerable groups.

@curtbradley.bsky.social recovers the “concomitants of nationality” idea in U.S. constitutional law—the presumption, traced through Curtiss-Wright, that the nation inherited the full range of sovereign powers recognized under international law, even when not in the constitutional text.

Ben Griswold analyzes how courts apply the Fair Housing Act’s reasonable accommodation provision and argues that the strictness of the “necessity” inquiry should turn on whether the plaintiff is a resident or a developer.

Coby Goldberg provides the first comprehensive analysis of judicial takings cases since Stop the Beach Renourishment, showing why no court has ever found a judicial taking—and how the doctrine nonetheless distorts property law.

Zoë Lewis Ewing examines New York’s Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, exposing inconsistent readings of its causation standard—and urging courts to adopt a broader approach that better reflects survivors’ experiences.

Jonathan Masur and @patentscholar.bsky.social unravel patent law’s “disclosure puzzles”—the doctrines that demand inventors reveal enough to teach the public while still preserving the value of their inventions.

Marco Basile uncovers how post–Civil War courts built judicial supremacy in constitutional law even as they retreated from international law—transforming both fields and fracturing the unified idea of public law.

Volume 92.6 is available online, featuring pieces by Marco Basile; Jonathan Masur & @patentscholar.bsky.social; Zoe Lewis Ewing; Coby Goldberg; and Ben Griswold. You can find them all here: lawreview.uchicago.edu.

Morgan O. Schaack argues that tribal treaties and the federal trust responsibility create a tribal right to spectrum access—casting tiered internet service without net neutrality as a breach of that duty.

Marta Krason critiques courts’ mischaracterization of FRAND disputes over standard-essential patents, proposing a contract- and property-based framework that assigns adjudication to judges, not juries.

Sabrina Huang calls on courts to drop the subjective malice requirement in Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims, urging an objective or burden-shifting test to expand relief and deter misconduct.

Jesse M. Cross spotlights the amended statute—amended tens of thousands of times each Congress—as the neglected but central democratic text of modern law, urging theory and practice to place it at the heart of public law.

@shbarclay.bsky.social critiques prevailing theories of constitutional rights as incoherent or incomplete, proposing instead a democratic model that better aligns with institutional competencies across government.

Volume 92.5 is now live, featuring pieces by @shbarclay.bsky.social; Jesse M. Cross; Sabrina Huang; Marta Krason; and Morgan O. Schaack. You can find them all here: lawreview.uchicago.edu.