Stanford Law Review

Read Rassieur's Note here: stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/…

In a Note, Leo Rassieur calls for a recentering of Section 1988 in constitutional torts, arguing that the Supreme Court's actual importation of common-law elements into Section 1983 leaves constitutional violations unanswered and victims uncompensated.

Volume 78, Issue 5 is now live on our website!

@duncanhosie 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: review.law.stanford.edu/online/factual…

In her Essay, @mollyxbrady 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/propert…

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. stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/…

In the second Article, Tiffany Yang uncovers the phenomenon of “prison grievance creep,” arguing the prison grievance system acts as both a procedural shield for prisons and a substantive weapon that intrudes into constitutional rights-making and remedies. stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/…

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! …d-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/upl…

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. stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/…

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. stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/…§-1202/

Volume 78, Issue 3 is now live on our website!