: Because the Supreme Court is powerful, it is largely able to fulfill its legal responsibilities. Because it is a court — because it lacks both the... The post The Supreme Court Under Threat: Early Lessons in Judicial Self-Protection appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: The Warren Court’s legacy is ubiquitous. With the eponymous Chief Justice Warren at the helm, the Supreme Court featured a strong majority of left-of-center jurists, and those “liberal lions” ruled (or roared) accordingly. The post To a Conservative Warren Court appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not issue “universal injunctions” unless “necessary to provide complete relief to... The post CASA’s Complete Relief Paradox appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Article III protects federal judges with life tenure and salary guarantees. But politics still impacts federal courts, especially the Supreme Court. The post Interim Orders, the Presidency, and Judicial Supremacy appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Bankruptcy courts occupy an odd place in the judicial system. In Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees parties in... The post Excluded Lenders v. Serta Simmons Bedding, L.L.C. appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Absent alcohol, dormant commerce clause doctrine is mostly familiar. Courts use strict scrutiny when state laws discriminate — facially, in purpose, or in effect — against... The post Does the Twenty-First Amendment Displace Pike Balancing? appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: One of the early lessons we learn in life is that things seek balance. When a parent pushes their child on a swing set,... The post Federalism Rebalancing and the Roberts Court: A Departure from Historical Patterns appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: * * * CaptionCitationPincite(s)Learning Res., Inc. v. Trump146 S. Ct. 628 (2026)683 n.2 (Thomas, J., dissenting); 684 (Thomas, J., dissenting)Trump v. CASA145 S. Ct.... The post Appendix to Montesquieu’s Day in Court: Recovering a Classical Understanding of Separated Powers appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: The Supreme Court has consistently confirmed that nonobscene sexually explicit content is First Amendment–protected expression. It has treated this sexually explicit content the same... The post Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Can habeas corpus cases proceed as class actions? The Supreme Court has never squarely answered that question, even in cases where lower courts certified habeas classes. But the Trump Administration’s wholesale push to expel noncitizens has forced the question to the center of modern civil rights litigation. The post Habeas Class Actions appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Lockstepping’s critics have increasingly found their voice in the courts. State constitutions are unique documents, with their own histories, texts, and procedures. But often,... The post Introduction appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: At some point, less than two decades after the United States Supreme Court found racial segregation in the public schools to be unconstitutional, the... The post Blown Chances appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Organized labor is in crisis. Despite recent polling showing higher levels of public support for unions than at any time since the 1960s, the... The post Redefining Organized Labor: How the Supreme Court Circumscribed the Role of Private Sector Unions in American Communities appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Courts often consult entrenched, preratification sources such as Blackstone’s Commentaries and The Digest of Justinian when rendering decisions in common law actions. These authorities... The post Elam v. Early appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: The Supreme Court has long declared itself “supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.” But that does not leave the state... The post People v. Thompson appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: The Gardner presumption, also known as the pro-veteran canon, is a substantive canon of interpretation named after the Supreme Court case Brown v. Gardner. The canon instructs courts to construe ambiguous statutes concerning veterans’ benefits in favor of the veteran. While the canon today rarely acts as a tiebreaker, it has historically represented a strong congressional intent to care for veterans. The post Codify Gardner appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Lifetime sex offender registration statutes are common across the states, and several state supreme courts have reached conflicting results in analyzing the constitutionality of... The post State ex rel. D.D. appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), a state law that prohibits transgender minors from accessing gender-affirming care. The post Skrmetti Beyond Scrutiny appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, made two bold immunity claims: that state court judges possess sovereign immunity... The post Hunt v. Richmond Police Department appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Introduction The Supreme Court has wavered between two approaches to questions of executive power, which are often labeled institutional formalism and realism. Formalism treats... The post Some Realism About Constitutional Remedies appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Introduction In a constitutional showdown with the executive branch, the courts may seem to have limited remedial options. Once we reach a point where... The post Remedies for a Constitutional Crisis appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.* In a bench statement delivered when the Supreme Court convened on May 9, 2025, Chief Justice Roberts offered... The post In Memoriam: Justice David H. Souter appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: This is the Appendix to The Supreme Court, 2024 Term — Leading Cases: Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 139 Harv. L. Rev. 302 (2025). The post Appendix for Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In recent years, the Supreme Court has developed the “major questions doctrine,” an interpretive presumption that Congress must speak clearly before delegating to an... The post The Compatibility of Substantive Canons and Originalism appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: The Supreme Court promises that government action is illegitimate if it “lack[s] any purpose other than a ‘bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.’”... The post Presidential Speech and the Discrimination Paradox appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: “[W]here there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .” Although Blackstone’s maxim has led to efforts to redress constitutional violations, courts... The post Fulton v. Fulton County Board of Commissioners appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: How to regulate speech on social media platforms has been the subject of vigorous debate and recent Supreme Court opinions. In particular, government agencies... The post People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Tabak appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: This is the Appendix to Jack Goldsmith, The Supreme Court, 2024 Term — Comment: Interim Orders, the Presidency, and Judicial Supremacy, 139 Harv. L. Rev. 86... The post Appendix for Interim Orders, the Presidency, and Judicial Supremacy appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: A revolution has occurred in the law of religious freedom. At this point, the picture is reasonably clear. The Supreme Court has greatly expanded the scope of the Free Exercise Clause. The post The Structure of Religious Preference appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court failed to fully clarify the “unquestionably muddy” relationship between Article III and the Seventh Amendment. Yet it... The post Sun Valley Orchards, LLCv. United States Department of Labor appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Prison law is characterized by judicial deference to penal administrators. Despite the well-documented horrors that occur behind prison walls, federal and state courts often decline to intervene, asserting, among other things, that prisoners’ rights are limited and that the judicial branch lacks the power and expertise to get involved in the inner workings of detention facilities. Moreover, jurists often assume that the nation’s first courts largely stayed out of prisons and jails, and contemporary judicial deference is therefore historically rooted. The post The Forgotten History of Prison Law: Judicial Oversight of Detention Facilities in the Nation’s Early Years appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: There has been increased skepticism of sexual harassment claims, both in the public sphere and in the courts. Recently, in Anderson v. Mott Street,... The post Anderson v. Mott Street, 104 F.4th 646 (7th Cir. 2024) appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Religious freedom claimants have achieved tremendous success before the Supreme Court in recent years. Yet free exercise jurisprudence has bounced between skepticism and embrace... The post Liberty of Conscience, Political Process Theory, and Founding-Era Free Exercise appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In 1927, a Supreme Court of Nebraska opinion quoted testimony from the physician who examined capital defendant Frank Carter: “[H]e belonged to a type... The post Bias Baked In: How Antisocial Personality Disorder Diagnoses Trigger Legal Failure appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: It has become increasingly difficult for civil rights plaintiffs to vindicate their rights in federal court. Barriers to successful lawsuits are plentiful. Qualified immunity... The post Without Remedies: The Effect of Cummings and the Contract Law Analogy on Antidiscrimination Spending Clause Plaintiffs appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: If the Warren Court reflected nearly twenty years of jurisprudence dismantling ugly systems of oppression and institutional injustice that embedded invidious practices and policies into American law and society... The post Medina v. Planned Parenthood: The Supreme Court’s Making of the New Jane Crow appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: Introduction On August 23, 1842, Congress quietly and quickly conferred a broad grant of rulemaking authority on the Supreme Court. The Act of Aug.... The post Making the Rules of the Rules of the Game: The Use, Misuse, and Disuse of the Rulemaking Grant in the Act of 1842 appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: The Digital Fourth Amendment is written by Professor Orin Kerr, one of the country’s foremost authorities on the Fourth Amendment, electronic privacy, and criminal procedure. Kerr’s work has been deeply influential in shaping how courts are looking at and deciding issues raised by law enforcement’s powerful and novel capabilities, thanks to technological changes. The post Fourth Amendment Equilibrium Adjustment in an Age of Technological Upheaval appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. (SFFA), the Supreme Court invalidated the race-based affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The SFFA majority held that the programs could not survive strict scrutiny: The universities’ interests in their affirmative action programs were not sufficiently compelling... The post SFFA and the Wrongs of Race-Based Statistical Discrimination appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College. (SFFA), the Supreme Court invalidated the race-based affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The SFFA majority held that the programs could not survive strict scrutiny: The universities’ interests in their affirmative action programs were not sufficiently compelling... The post SFFA and the Wrong of Race-Based Statistical Discrimination appeared first on Harvard Law Review
: A longstanding choice-of-law rule known as the internal affairs doctrine has predominated over corporate law matters in the United States since at least the 1860s. Acknowledged by the Supreme Court and generally followed by the states, the doctrine holds that the internal affairs of a corporation are governed by the law of the state where it is incorporated, notwithstanding where it may be headquartered. The post Dormancy and Delaware: An Emerging Threat to the Internal Affairs Doctrine appeared first on Harvard Law Review