UChicago Law Review

Professor Sarath Sanga argues that while LPE rightly challenges L&E's claims of neutrality, it has failed to faithfully engage with the field it seeks to critique.

Professor @sanjukta.bsky.social identifies and explores the normative role of the self-coordinating market as the crux of the disagreement between L&E and LPE.

Professor Jonathan Klick critiques the LPE movement's approach to criminal justice, presenting evidence that reform efforts championed by LPE risk harming the Black communities they aim to help.

Professors @hajinkim.bsky.social, @kevintobia.bsky.social, and Kristen Underhill explore experimentation as a mode of legal research, tracing its history and discussing its potential.

Professor @akapczynski.bsky.social outlines the LPE approach, situating it in comparison to L&E and legal realism and highlighting its methodological openness.

Professor Erik Hovenkamp critiques the antimonopoly movement's focus on abstract moral and political concerns, and argues that antitrust law should target anticompetitive behavior rather than size for size's sake.

Professors @jacobsgoldin.bsky.social and @zliscow.bsky.social investigate the conditions under which the socially optimal legal rule is an inefficient one—and potential arguments in favor of adopting such rules.

Professors @sonofdavid.bsky.social and @jocelynsimonson.bsky.social encourage scholars to look to bottom-up sources of knowledge for a richer understanding of the relationships between law, politics, economics, and the material world.

Professors Amy J. Cohen and Ilana Gershon (@structureless.bsky.social) draw on recent work to explain how economic experiences shape political and legal sensibilities, highlighting the value of qualitative and ethnographic methods.

Dean @adamchilton.bsky.social and Professors @joshuamacey.bsky.social and Mila Versteeg offer an account of L&E in its contemporary form, including its comparative advantages, relationship to LPE, and path to renewed relevance.

Volume 93.2 is now live, featuring pieces from our Spring 2025 Symposium—Law & Economics (L&E) vs. Law & Political Economy (LPE): A Debate. You can find them all here: lawreview.uchicago.edu.

The University of Chicago Law Review is now accepting submissions for Volume 94. Please visit lawreview.uchicago.edu/submissions to learn more. We look forward to reading your scholarship!

Congratulations to the newly selected v94 Managing Board! We cannot wait to see what this incredible team accomplishes over the coming year.

Professors Ayres, Bankman, and @danielhemel.bsky.social present a model of guilt and shame to account for negative moral emotions when evaluating the effect of legal rules on social welfare.

Professor @nicolesummers.bsky.social conducts the first empirical study of eviction settlement negotiations and demonstrates that unrepresented tenants have no meaningful influence over settlement terms.

Professors @bridgetfahey.bsky.social and Raul Castro Fernandez develop an original account of data's place in structural constitutional law.

Professors Albert H. Choi & George Triantis discuss the effects of contract modification doctrine on the timing of parties' decision to contract.

Volume 93.1 is now live, featuring pieces by Albert H. Choi & George Triantis; @bridgetfahey.bsky.social & Raul Castro Fernandez; @nicolesummers.bsky.social; and Ian Ayres, Joseph Bankman & @danielhemel.bsky.social. You can find them all here: lawreview.uchicago.edu

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.