Sign in

Stanford Law Review

@stanlrev.bsky.social
220 followers 83 following 75 posts

A legal publication run by @StanfordLaw.bsky.social students since 1948, providing expert legal scholarship, analysis, and commentary. stanfordlawreview.org

PostsRepliesMedia
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 04/10/2026
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!
062
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
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.org
Unpacking AI Bias and the Antidiscrimination Law Dilemma | Stanford Law Review
In their Essay, Hoang Pham, Hannah Cha, and Rashon Poole argue that contemporary disputes over "AI bias" are best understood as normative di
022
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
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.org
Classifying and Countering AI Proxy Discrimination | Stanford Law Review
When Derek Mobley was rejected from over one hundred jobs by Workday’s AI screening platform, his intentional discrimination claim struggled on a ba
020
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
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.org
AI Privilege and the Legal Services Crisis | Stanford Law Review
In their Essay, Professor Andrea Roth and Professor Rebecca Wexler argue that existing attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine can protect
000
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
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.org
Automated Student Monitoring and Equal Access to Public Education | Stanford Law Review
In his Essay, Professor Tyler Valeska examines how automated student monitoring implicates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Professor Valeska ar
010
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
@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.org
Algorithm as Agent: AI Vendor Liability for Title VII Hiring Discrimination After <em>Loper Bright</em> | Stanford Law Review
In his essay, Cheng-chi (Kirin) Chang examines Mobley v. Workday, the most consequential AI-discrimination case currently in litigation, through the l
010
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
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.org
AI Agnotology, Cognitive Surrender, and Policing Accountability | Stanford Law Review
Law enforcement agencies have increasingly employed artificial intelligence (AI) in their investigatory methods and technology. This usage, however, r
011
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
Antidiscrimination Law in an AI-Pervaded World | Stanford Law Review
In their Essay introducing the Special Collection on Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Civil Rights, Ralph Richard Banks, Guy-Uri
021
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
@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...
review.law.stanford.edu
Disparate (Algorithmic) Advantage | Stanford Law Review
Could artificial intelligence (AI) make civil rights enforcement easier? Professor Yunsieg P. Kim & Professor Jacob Eisler argue that, compared to
010
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
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/
stanfordlawreview.org
Stanford Law Review Online | Stanford Law Review
011
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 14/08/2026
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.
000
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 18/07/2026
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
stanford-law-review.scholasticahq.com
For Authors | Stanford Law Review
The Stanford Law Review was organized in 1948. It is operated entirely by Stanford Law School students.
000
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 26/06/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
Property v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in <em>Wolford</em> | Stanford Law Review
In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court will examine whether states can require property owners to consent before armed individuals enter publicly-acce
000
Reposted by Stanford Law Review
David H. Gans @davidhgans.bsky.social · 20/06/2026
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.com
Justice Gorsuch’s Ode to Weed
Justice Gorsuch on the day-drinking habits of the founders and why your evening gummy is totally fine.
045
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
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!
002
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.
040
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.
stanfordlawreview.org
Regulatory Severability | Stanford Law Review
063
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.org
In <em>CASA</em> You Missed It | Stanford Law Review
162
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.
stanfordlawreview.org
The National Security Administrative State | Stanford Law Review
132
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.org
Civil Rights Administration | Stanford Law Review
292
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.”
stanfordlawreview.org
Communicative Administration: The Administrative State Beyond Legal Administration | Stanford Law Review
163
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.org
Rethinking the Administrative Remand Rule | Stanford Law Review
120
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.
stanfordlawreview.org
The Administrative Law of McCarthyism | Stanford Law Review
1115
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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.org
Commission Quorums | Stanford Law Review
1258
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 01/06/2026
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?
151
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 06/05/2026
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.
stanfordlawreview.org
Recentering Section 1988 in Constitutional Torts | Stanford Law Review
021
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 06/05/2026
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.org
Bankrupting Labor Power | Stanford Law Review
141
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 06/05/2026
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.
stanfordlawreview.org
AI and Doctrinal Collapse | Stanford Law Review
113
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 06/05/2026
Volume 78, Issue 5 is now live on our website!
110
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 15/04/2026
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.edu
Factual Revisionism: Precedent Subversion and the “Kavanaugh Stop” | Stanford Law Review
In his Essay, Duncan Hosie identifies and theorizes “factual revisionism,” a method through which an appellate judge mischaracterizes a lower cour
000
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 09/04/2026
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...
review.law.stanford.edu
Property v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in <em>Wolford</em> | Stanford Law Review
In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court will examine whether states can require property owners to consent before armed individuals enter publicly-acce
030
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 08/04/2026
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
The Courts of Appeals’ Unlawful Injunctions | Stanford Law Review
010
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 08/04/2026
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.org
Prison Grievance Creep | Stanford Law Review
110
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 08/04/2026
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.
stanfordlawreview.org
Origin Stories in Property Law | Stanford Law Review
110
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 08/04/2026
Volume 78, Issue 4 is now live on our website!
120
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 03/04/2026
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
stanford-law-review-online.scholasticahq.com
For Authors | Stanford Law Review Online
Stanford Law Review Online supplements SLR's print editions with short (usually < 5,000 words) and timely pieces of legal scholarship.
000
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 09/03/2026
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...
review.law.stanford.edu
001
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
The Privatization of Sexual Harassment Adjudication and the Eclipse of Civil Rights | Stanford Law Review
000
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
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.org
Beyond Infringement: Rethinking DMCA § 1202 for Generative AI | Stanford Law Review
100
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
Sanctioning Negligent Bankers | Stanford Law Review
100
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
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.org
Warranting Violence | Stanford Law Review
100
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
Volume 78, Issue 3 is now live on our website!
110
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 20/02/2026
On February 27 and 28, the Stanford Law Review will bring together scholars, practitioners, and judges to discuss the future of administrative law and seismic shifts in executive power. The Symposium is open to the public. To learn more and register, visit www.stanfordlawreview.org/symposium/v78/.
000
Reposted by Stanford Law Review
Andrew Willinger @andrewwillinger.bsky.social · 11/02/2026
Thrilled that my article Private Governance and Originalism will be published in the Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social! The article explains why private groups including schools, corps & other orgs create unique challenges (and opportunities) under originalist "history & tradition" tests
32610
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
Rule 19 and Tribal Representation in Indian Gaming Litigation | Stanford Law Review
000
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
Attention Capitalism: The Law and Political Economy of Attention Markets | Stanford Law Review
110
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
Is History Precedent? | Stanford Law Review
100
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
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...
stanfordlawreview.org
The <em>Brady</em> Materiality Standard | Stanford Law Review
100
Stanford Law Review @stanlrev.bsky.social · 04/02/2026
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...
110