Stanford Law Review

The Stanford Law Review Online is seeking legal scholarship under 10,000 words. Our website and Scholastica portal will open on Friday, October 30, 2026, at 9 AM PDT. We look forward to reviewing your submissions!

stanfordlawreview.orgUnpacking AI Bias and the Antidiscrimination Law Dilemma | Stanford Law ReviewIn their Essay, Hoang Pham, Hannah Cha, and Rashon Poole argue that contemporary disputes over "AI bias" are best understood as normative di

Hoang Pham, Hannah Cha, and Rashon Poole argue that contemporary disputes over "AI bias" are best understood as normative disagreements about representation—whether AI systems should mirror the world or be designed to promote a more inclusive future. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/unpac...

stanfordlawreview.orgClassifying and Countering AI Proxy Discrimination | Stanford Law ReviewWhen Derek Mobley was rejected from over one hundred jobs by Workday’s AI screening platform, his intentional discrimination claim struggled on a ba

When Derek Mobley was rejected from over 100 jobs by Workday’s AI screener, his intentional discrimination claim failed because algorithms have no intent. Keith Swisher argues this exposes a mismatch between civil rights law and machine learning systems. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/class...

stanfordlawreview.orgAI Privilege and the Legal Services Crisis | Stanford Law ReviewIn their Essay, Professor Andrea Roth and Professor Rebecca Wexler argue that existing attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine can protect

Andrea Roth and @rebeccawexler.bsky.social contend that courts should apply existing privilege law to protect at least some exchanges between litigants and AI chatbots, and that doing so could help address the legal services crisis. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/ai-pr...

stanfordlawreview.orgAutomated Student Monitoring and Equal Access to Public Education | Stanford Law ReviewIn his Essay, Professor Tyler Valeska examines how automated student monitoring implicates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Professor Valeska ar

Tyler Valeska argues that schools’ use of automated student surveillance software implicates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and creates two distinct civil-rights concerns for students who have disabilities and need special education. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/autom...

stanfordlawreview.orgAlgorithm as Agent: AI Vendor Liability for Title VII Hiring Discrimination After Loper Bright | Stanford Law ReviewIn his essay, Cheng-chi (Kirin) Chang examines Mobley v. Workday, the most consequential AI-discrimination case currently in litigation, through the l

@kirinchang.com examines Mobley v. Workday, the most consequential AI discrimination case currently in litigation, and the impacts of Loper Bright on AI civil-rights litigation. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/algor...

stanfordlawreview.orgAI Agnotology, Cognitive Surrender, and Policing Accountability | Stanford Law ReviewLaw enforcement agencies have increasingly employed artificial intelligence (AI) in their investigatory methods and technology. This usage, however, r

Law enforcement agencies increasingly employ AI in their investigatory methods. @jvagle.me situates this phenomenon within the framework of agnotology and analyzes the implications of relying on AI systems in such a high-stakes context. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/ai-ag...

stanfordlawreview.orgAntidiscrimination Law in an AI-Pervaded World | Stanford Law ReviewIn their Essay introducing the Special Collection on Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Civil Rights, Ralph Richard Banks, Guy-Uri

Ralph Richard Banks, Guy-Uriel Charles, Spencer Overton, and Victor Y. Wu argue that the principal framework for addressing AI-driven discrimination is disparate impact law, which is threatened by the Supreme Court’s embrace of colorblindness. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/antid...

review.law.stanford.eduDisparate (Algorithmic) Advantage | Stanford Law ReviewCould artificial intelligence (AI) make civil rights enforcement easier? Professor Yunsieg P. Kim & Professor Jacob Eisler argue that, compared to

@yunsieg.bsky.social and @jacobeisler.bsky.social argue that AI may make civil rights enforcement easier. Algorithms are more consistent and replicable than humans, which makes proving disparate impact easier. review.law.stanford.edu/online/dispa...

stanfordlawreview.orgStanford Law Review Online | Stanford Law Review

The Stanford Law Review Online’s Special Collection Essays are now available on our website! Check out all eight Essays on Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Civil Rights. www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/

14 Aug

The Stanford Law Review’s submission portal is now closed. The portal for publication in Volume 80 will reopen in early 2026. As always, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at articles@stanfordlawreview.org.

stanford-law-review.scholasticahq.comFor Authors | Stanford Law ReviewThe Stanford Law Review was organized in 1948. It is operated entirely by Stanford Law School students.

18 July

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

stanfordlawreview.orgProperty v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in Wolford | Stanford Law ReviewIn Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court will examine whether states can require property owners to consent before armed individuals enter publicly-acce

26 June

Professor Maureen Brady’s recent piece in the Stanford Law Review Online was cited by Justice Barrett in her concurrence in today’s Supreme Court decision Wolford v. Lopez. Give it a read! www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/prope...

Stanford Law Review reposted

David H. Gans

@davidhgans.bsky.social

20 June

Wonderful to be in conversation with the brilliant @dahlialithwick.bsky.social on @slate.com's Amicus podcast discussing my forthcoming @stanlrev.bsky.social article on Black Conventions of the 1860s and how Black activism shaped the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen here: slate.com/podcasts/ami...

slate.comJustice Gorsuch’s Ode to WeedJustice Gorsuch on the day-drinking habits of the founders and why your evening gummy is totally fine.

24 June

Stanford Law Review’s summer submission cycle and our Scholastica submission portal will open on Friday, July 17, 2026, at 5 PM PDT. We look forward to reviewing submissions on a rolling basis!

Volume 78 is now complete! Read our complete Volume at www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/. Congratulations to the 52 outstanding Authors across Volume 78’s print and online journals, and thank you to Volume 78’s exceptional editors for their incredible dedication to the Stanford Law Review.

Volume 78’s final issue—Issue 6—is now live on our website! The Issue’s theme is APA at 80: What’s Next for Administrative Law?

stanfordlawreview.orgIn CASA You Missed It | Stanford Law Review

In the third Essay, Mila Sohoni details how Trump v. CASA should not be read, warning that the Trump Administration's rhetoric around the decision improperly frames legitimate judicial deliberation as defiance and threatens to poison intrabranch dialogue within the Article III judiciary

stanfordlawreview.orgRegulatory Severability | Stanford Law Review

In a Note, Sophia Caldera advances a novel interpretation of the APA's judicial review provision as instructing courts to sever regulations where possible, arguing that this preference for severability is a critical step as agency actions become more vulnerable to judicial second-guessing.

Volume 78’s final issue—Issue 6—is now live on our website! The Issue’s theme is APA at 80: What’s Next for Administrative Law?

stanfordlawreview.orgCivil Rights Administration | Stanford Law Review

In the first Essay, @deborahnarcher.bsky.social and Joseph R. Schottenfeld outline the rise and fall of civil rights administration, warning that as the infrastructure of civil rights administration crumbles, we risk losing the state's own capacity to recognize, respond to, and remedy inequality.

stanfordlawreview.orgThe National Security Administrative State | Stanford Law Review

In the second Essay, Laura K. Donohue defines and provides an overview of the National Security Administrative State (NSAS), examining the APA’s role in regulating the NSAS and arguing that it is time to take account of the NSAS as an administrative entity.

Volume 78’s final issue—Issue 6—is now live on our website! The Issue’s theme is APA at 80: What’s Next for Administrative Law?

stanfordlawreview.orgRethinking the Administrative Remand Rule | Stanford Law Review

In the third Article, Matthew J. Sanders examines the administrative remand rule's origins and applications and argues for modest adjustments to make the rule more consistent across the circuits, better balance judicial efficiency and justice, and promote better agency decisionmaking.

stanfordlawreview.orgCommunicative Administration: The Administrative State Beyond Legal Administration | Stanford Law Review

In the fourth Article, Daniel E. Walters uncovers how agencies are accumulating unchecked powers to advance controversial policy goals through strategic uses of information and communication—what he calls “communicative administration.”

Volume 78’s final issue—Issue 6—is now live on our website! The Issue’s theme is APA at 80: What’s Next for Administrative Law?

stanfordlawreview.orgCommission Quorums | Stanford Law Review

In the first Article, @nicholasbednar.bsky.social & @tphillips.bsky.social present an empirical study of quorum rules in multimember commissions and contend presidential removals that destroy a quorum may be unconstitutional if they frustrate the executive's duty to faithfully execute the laws.

stanfordlawreview.orgThe Administrative Law of McCarthyism | Stanford Law Review

In the second Article, @nicholashandler.bsky.social recovers the overlooked legal and administrative history of the federal loyalty program, arguing that it played a formative role in developing modern civil service protections.

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

stanfordlawreview.orgBankrupting Labor Power | Stanford Law Review

In the second Article, @alvinvelazquez.bsky.social examines how corporations weaponize the bankruptcy system against labor and argues that denying unions the same discharge protections as corporations undermines collective worker power and bankruptcy's promise of a fresh start.

stanfordlawreview.orgRecentering Section 1988 in Constitutional Torts | Stanford Law Review

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!

stanfordlawreview.orgAI and Doctrinal Collapse | Stanford Law Review

In the first Article, @aliciasn.bsky.social argues that the rise of artificial intelligence has triggered an "inter-regime doctrinal collapse" between privacy law and copyright law, enabling leading AI developers to exploit data acquisition and evade legal oversight.

review.law.stanford.eduFactual Revisionism: Precedent Subversion and the “Kavanaugh Stop” | Stanford Law ReviewIn his Essay, Duncan Hosie identifies and theorizes “factual revisionism,” a method through which an appellate judge mischaracterizes a lower cour

15 Apr

Duncan Hosie 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.eduProperty v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in Wolford | Stanford Law ReviewIn Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court will examine whether states can require property owners to consent before armed individuals enter publicly-acce

9 Apr

In her Essay, @maureenebrady.com 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/prope...

Volume 78, Issue 4 is now live on our website!

stanfordlawreview.orgPrison Grievance Creep | Stanford Law Review

In the second Article, @tyang.bsky.social uncovers the phenomenon of “prison grievance creep,” arguing that 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.orgThe Courts of Appeals’ Unlawful Injunctions | Stanford Law Review

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.

Volume 78, Issue 4 is now live on our website!

stanfordlawreview.orgOrigin Stories in Property Law | Stanford Law Review

In the first Article, José Argueta Funes reconstructs property reform in nineteenth-century Hawai'i to explore how legal origin stories influence which property claims are considered valid and which economic activities receive preferential treatment.

stanford-law-review-online.scholasticahq.comFor Authors | Stanford Law Review OnlineStanford Law Review Online supplements SLR's print editions with short (usually < 5,000 words) and timely pieces of legal scholarship.

3 Apr

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! stanford-law-review-online.scholasticahq.com/for-authors

review.law.stanford.edureview.law.stanford.edu

9 Mar

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/u...

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

stanfordlawreview.orgBeyond Infringement: Rethinking DMCA § 1202 for Generative AI | Stanford Law Review

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...

stanfordlawreview.orgThe Privatization of Sexual Harassment Adjudication and the Eclipse of Civil Rights | Stanford Law Review

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...

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

stanfordlawreview.orgWarranting Violence | Stanford Law Review

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...

stanfordlawreview.orgSanctioning Negligent Bankers | Stanford Law Review

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...