Can courts review the President’s retaliatory decision to revoke security clearances? In this Essay, Stanford J.D. Candidate Shreeya Singh argues Supreme Court precedent says “yes,” but a recent court decision seems to effectively immunize the executive branch from judicial scrutiny in these cases in the name of national security.
Reviving Nixon-era arguments, the Trump Administration claims the power to unilaterally withhold congressionally appropriated funds. In this Essay, Zachary Price dismantles the constitutional and practical case for presidential impoundment, and warns that letting the executive control the purse would threaten separation of powers and undermine democratic accountability.
President Trump has leveraged federal funds to induce private entities, like universities, to suppress individuals’ free speech. Bernadette Meyler proposes extending the “independent constitutional bar” test—traditionally applied to states—to private funding recipients when individual rights are affected. Otherwise, the federal government may evade accountability when it acts through intermediaries to circumvent constitutional limits.
Drawing on global political histories, Diego Zambrano explores why many democracies abroad rally around “the rule of law,” while Americans reach instinctively for “due process.” He argues that distinction isn’t just rhetorical: it may leave Americans less equipped to recognize and resist attacks on democratic institutions.
Introduction Lower courts are grappling with challenges to what were, until recently, settled Second Amendment laws—most notably, the federal laws prohibiting felons and those involuntarily committed from purchasing or possessing firearms. These categorical prohibitions are two of the most prominent so-called “federal prohibitors.” People who fall into one or more of the prohibited categories…
Lincoln L. Davies and Stephanie Lenhart warn that the energy future of the Western United States will be determined by the choices California makes over the next two years. Davies and Lenhart urge California to move towards a regional western electricity market to improve energy efficiency, reliability, and sustainability, and to avoid isolating California’s electricity market.
In his response to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and former Ohio Solicitor General Benjamin Flowers, Jaden Lessnick argues that the federal sentence-reduction statute (18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)) is not preempted by the presidential pardon power. Lessnick contends that the statute does not offend the traditional separation-of-powers principle, and preemption is not justified under the unitary executive theory.
Prof. Kim Forde-Mazrui of the University of Virginia responds to Sonja Starr’s print Article, The Magnet School Wars and the Future of Colorblindness. Forde-Mazrui argues that even if courts adopt the “ends-colorblindness” framework described by Starr, “alternative action” policies meant to promote diversity may still be constitutionally permissible.
Access to justice has become a defining legal and political issue. In this Essay, Nora Freeman Engstrom and David Freeman Engstrom work to identify the cause of the Access to Justice Crisis.
The mugshot taken of Donald Trump in connection with his Georgia criminal prosecution has become one of the defining political images of the time. In this Essay, Cathay Y. N. Smith discusses who owns the copyright to this iconic photo.
In this response piece to the Abortion Pills piece in the Stanford Law Review, Prof. Susan Morse and Leah Butterfield of the University of Texas explain why most administrative challenges to abortion pill regulations are untimely.
In recent months, California and Washington have enacted statutes forbidding private corporations in their states from cooperating with other states’ efforts to enforce abortion bans. In this Essay, Haley Amster argues that such “blocking laws” do not violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and are constitutionally permissible.
The statute governing obstruction of an official proceeding—one of the charges brought against January 6 defendants and then-President Trump—faces a moment of reckoning. This Essay by Stanford J.D. candidate Jennifer L. Portis identifies a novel interpretation: § 1512(c)(2) reaches only direct obstruction, not those individuals who obstruct the official proceeding through another person's conduct.
In this Essay, Aliya Sternstein of Georgetown University Law Center argues that an international body must set a standard, five-year window, after an emergency vaccine is administered and when the recipient can seek compensation for an injury. Sternstein further argues that emergency vaccine developers should receive immunity against liabilities except for willful misconduct.
In this Essay, Prof. John J. Martin of the University of Virginia School of Law argues for a Congressional Incapacity Amendment to the Constitution, modeled on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment's provisions for Presidential incapacity.
In this Essay, Prof. Jacob D. Charles of Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law considers the use of history and tradition in firearm regulation following the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. He argues that courts should use an "Abstraction Approach" in considering historical analogues to modern regulations.
In this Essay, Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considers appellate courts' use of information from outside the factual record, i.e. "non-adjudicative facts," when making decisions. Although this practice is commonplace and often harmless, the Essay notes the greater potential for incorrect conclusions when relying on facts outside the record. It urges judges to use non-adjudicative facts with caution, and carefully verify them to avoid serious error.
Class actions are plagued by poor communication between class counsel and the masses of unnamed class members. In this Essay, Professors Alissa del Riego and Joseph Avery propose that these barriers be overcome by using the new technical capabilities of artificial intelligence, and by adding an express duty to communicate to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In this Essay, part of Stanford Law Review's 2023 Access to Justice Symposium, Juliet M. Brodie and Larisa G. Bowman argue that most low-income tenants facing eviction do not need a lawyer—they need money to pay rent. They suggest investing in rental assistance programs and non-attorney advocates to save legal resources for cases with factual or legal disputes.
In this Essay, part of Stanford Law Review's 2023 Access to Justice Symposium, Lauren Sudeall argues that many aspects of the civil legal system systematically disfavor poor litigants. She suggests removing certain types of cases from the legal system altogether, following the logic of decriminalization in the civil sphere.
