Stanford Law Review

Most Recent Print Issue

Volume 78, Issue 5

May 2026

Article

AI and Doctrinal Collapse

by Alicia Solow-Niederman

This Article identifies this phenomenon, which I call “inter-regime doctrinal collapse,” and exposes the individual and institutional consequences. Through analysis of pending litigation, discovery disputes, and licensing agreements, this Article highlights two dominant exploitation tactics enabled by collapse: Companies “buy” data through business-to-business deals that sidestep individual privacy interests or “ask” users for broad consent…

Article

Bankrupting Labor Power

by Alvin Velazquez

Corporations use bankruptcy to undermine collective worker power. They can run to bankruptcy court, for example, to shed collective bargaining agreements or tort judgments for sexual harassment and race discrimination claims. But when unions and workers fight back through collective action, corporations respond by filing tort suits, chasing the unions into bankruptcy. If unions were…

Note

Recentering Section 1988 in Constitutional Torts

by Leo Rassieur

Constitutional rights do not enforce themselves. The constitutional tort, generally taking the form of an action under either Section 1983 or Bivens, is one important vehicle for individuals to vindicate their constitutional rights. Jurists and civil rights scholars have documented the many barriers to relief under these two causes of action—official immunities, governmental immunities, and…

View Current & Past Print Volumes

Recent Online Essays

Factual Revisionism: Precedent Subversion and the “Kavanaugh Stop”

by Duncan Hosie

In his Essay, Duncan Hosie identifies and theorizes “factual revisionism,” a method through which an appellate judge mischaracterizes a lower court’s factfinding, which manipulates how precedent is applied, while maintaining the appearance of continuity. Hosie argues Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo altered Fourth Amendment jurisprudence by inaccurately characterizing the record and controlling precedent to permit detentive stops based solely on ethnicity and demographics, illustrating the significant consequences of these so-called “Kavanaugh stops” for federal immigration enforcement and of factual revisionism for the rule of law.

Read Article

Property v. Guns: The Level-of-Generality Problem in Wolford

by Maureen E. Brady

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court will examine whether states can require property owners to consent before armed individuals enter publicly-accessible private property. Maureen Brady argues this highlights the "level-of-generality problem" rooted in the Court's historical framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, particularly in relation to firearm regulations. Brady examines the differing interpretations of Founding-era hunting laws and the implications of property ownership signals, concluding that courts should be transparent about their level-of-generality choices and acknowledge how these choices reintroduce means-ends reasoning under another name.

Read Article

The Emerging Firearms Hypocrisy of Terry: The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Wilson

by Aliza Hochman Bloom

Terry v. Ohio’s flexible reasonable-suspicion rule is colliding with the post-Bruen expansion of public carry. In United States v. Wilson, the Fifth Circuit held that suspected concealed gun possession—presumptively lawful in Louisiana—could not alone justify a stop, yet it sustained the seizure by relying on Mr. Wilson’s social associations and arrest history. Professor Hochman Bloom argues this emerging “firearm exceptionalism” elevates guns over other lawful acts and entrenches Terry’s racialized, hindsight-driven policing.

Read Article

A Remedy Inherited: State Law, Universal Vacatur, and the Meaning of “Set Aside”

by Fred Halbhuber

Introduction This past June, in a decision already heralded as marking a “landmark shift in administrative law,” the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, Inc. held that federal courts “likely” lacked the power to issue universal injunctions. Universal injunctions, the 6-3 majority concluded, likely exceeded the equitable authority that Congress had bestowed on the federal courts…

Read Article

Threats to Contraception

by Deborah Tuerkheimer

Many question the future of the right to contraception after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but Deborah Tuerkheimer argues that the more immediate threats lie beyond the Supreme Court. Contraceptive access is eroding through three interconnected forces: post-Dobbs funding cuts and clinic closures, expanding parental- and conscience-based claims, and misinformation-driven cultural shifts that invite restrictive regulation. Together, these developments imperil contraception even as formal protections remain intact.

Read Article