Print Issues

Volume 68, Issue 1


In Memory of J. Paul Lomio

Director, Robert Crown Law Library
by  Stanford Law School Students, Faculty & Staff

In memory of the services provided to Stanford Law School and the Stanford Law Review, we dedicate the first issue of Volume 68 to the memory of J. Paul Lomio, an extraordinary director of the Stanford Law School library and an irreplaceable member of the Stanford community. J. Paul Lomio was born in 1950 in…


Speech-Facilitating Conduct

by  Wesley J. Campbell

Free speech doctrine generally protects only expression, leaving regulations of nonexpressive conduct beyond the First Amendment’s scope. Yet the Supreme Court has recognized that abridgments of the freedom of speech “may operate at different points in the speech process.” This notion of protection for nonexpressive conduct that facilitates speech touches on many of the most…


The Shareholder Value of Empowered Boards

by  K.J. Martijn Cremers & Simone M. Sepe

In the last decade, the balance of power between shareholders and boards has shifted dramatically. Changes in both the marketplace and the legal landscape governing it have turned the call for empowered shareholders into a new reality. Correspondingly, the authority that boards of directors have historically held in U.S. corporate law has been eroded. Empirical…


Unequal Protection

by  Russell K. Robinson

During the last thirty years, the Supreme Court has steadily diminished the vigor of the Equal Protection Clause. It has turned away people of color who protest systems such as racialized mass incarceration because their oppression does not take the form of a “racial classification.” It has diluted the protections of intermediate scrutiny in gender…


Did X Mark the Spot?

Brand X and the Scope of Agency Overrides of Judicial Decisions
by  Wesley Sze

In 2005, the Supreme Court issued a startling administrative law decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services. In Brand X, the Court held that agencies could override judicial constructions of ambiguous federal laws by promulgating their own conflicting, yet authoritative, interpretations. Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that the Brand X rule marked an unconstitutional…