Harvard Law Review

The editors of the Harvard Law Review respectfully dedicate this issue to Justice David H. Souter. The Harvard Law Review is a law review published by an independent student group at Harvard Law School. According to the Journal Citation Reports, the Harvard Law Review's 2015 impact factor of 4.979 placed the journal first out of 143 journals in the category "Law".[1] It also ranks first in other ranking... The journal also publishes the online-only Harvard Law Review Forum, a rolling journal of scholarly responses to the main journal's content. The law review is one of three honors societies at the law school, along with the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau and the Board of Student Advisors.

Students who are selected for more than one of these three organizations may only join one. The Harvard Law Review Association—in conjunction with the Columbia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal—publishes The Bluebook, the primary guide for legal citation formats in the United... The Harvard Law Review published its first issue on April 15, 1887, making it one of the oldest operating student-edited law reviews in the United States.[4] The establishment of the journal was largely due... From the 1880s to the 1970s, editors were selected based on their grades; the president of the Review was the student with the highest academic rank. The first female editor of the journal was Priscilla Holmes (1953–1955, Volumes 67–68);[5] the first woman to serve as the journal's president was Susan Estrich (1977), who later was active in Democratic Party politics... Crespo, who is now tenured as a professor at Harvard Law School.[12] The first female African-American president, ImeIme Umana, was elected in 2017.[13]

Former solicitors general recall what it’s like representing the U.S. government amid shifts on the SCOTUS bench. Join EDP for an informal discussion about the Harvard Law Review! At this event, 2L and 3L members of EDP will talk about what the Review does, the mechanics… In her memoir, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tells the story of her life and ascendance to the Supreme Court We look forward to welcoming you to the Harvard Law Review’s Spring Event!

Moderated by Professor Richard Lazarus, this event will feature a panel of three… Please join the Harvard Law Review for a conversation with Karen Tani, the Seaman Family University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. The Harvard Law Review publishes articles by professors, judges, and practitioners and solicits reviews of important recent books from recognized experts. Each issue also contains pieces by student editors. Published monthly from November through June, the Review has roughly 2,000 pages per volume. All articles--even those by the most respected authorities--are subjected to a rigorous editorial process designed to sharpen and strengthen substance and tone.

The November issue contains the Supreme Court Foreword (usually by a prominent constitutional scholar), the faculty Case Comment, twenty-five Case Notes (analyses by third-year students of the most important decisions of the previous Supreme... The February issue features the annual Developments in the Law project, an in-depth treatment of an important area of the law. This article explores how international sports organizations like FIFA and the International Olympic Committee evade legal responsibility for human rights abuses linked to major sporting events. These institutions often operate beyond the reach of national and international laws due to their nonprofit status, global structure, and favorable contracts with host countries. Voluntary standards, such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, have inadequately ensured accountability. This article reviews key legal tools such as corporate due diligence laws, strategic litigation, investment law, and public procurement rules.

It also proposes a new solution: the Sporting Accountability Compact (SAC). The SAC is a treaty-based legal framework that would create enforceable obligations for sports bodies, sponsors, and host countries. By making human rights protections a legal requirement, not just a suggestion, the SAC aims to close the accountability gap in global sports. This paper examines the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference and fundamentally reshaped the structure of administrative law in the United States. For forty years, Chevron U.S.A.

v. NRDC (1984) had anchored the relationship between courts and agencies, requiring judges to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Its reversal marks a sweeping shift of interpretive authority from specialized agencies — such as the EPA, Federal Reserve, and SEC — to generalist courts. I argue that this decision undermines the efficiency and expertise-based foundation of federal regulation, eroding the balance between judicial oversight and administrative discretion. Without Chevron’s deference, regulatory enforcement will become slower, more politicized, and more vulnerable to judicial inconsistency. The ruling risks transforming the judiciary from a constitutional referee into an economic policymaker, jeopardizing the very predictability that modern governance depends on.

In recent years, the landscape of collegiate athletics has undergone unprecedented transformation. After decades of rigid restrictions on athlete compensation, legal challenges have forced the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) to reevaluate its long-standing model of amateurism. One of the most significant of these challenges occurred in 2020, when two collegiate athletes filed House v. NCAA, alleging that the NCAA’s NIL restrictions violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by fixing prices and engaging in a group boycott. Just a month after House v. NCAA, two additional antitrust cases — Hubbard v.

NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA —w ere filed, with plaintiffs similarly arguing that the NCAA’s restrictions on performance-related benefits violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, constituting an unlawful restraint of trade. The plaintiffs contended that these limitations on athletes' compensation for their athletic performance were anti-competitive, as they unfairly prevented athletes from receiving financial rewards tied to their success in collegiate sports. This piece analyzes the constitutional questions raised by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (TRA). Following President Carter’s decision to derecognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) and formally recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC), a congressional majority sprang into action to restrain Carter’s foreign affairs authority regarding Washington’s... In doing so, Congress’s actions raise significant constitutional questions about the Constitution’s foreign affairs powers: can the Congress condition the executive’s external recognition of sovereign states via statute?

And can the legislature mandate that the executive sell arms to a foreign entity? My answer to these questions encompasses both constitutional and political analysis. I conclude that, while certain elements of the law are arguably unconstitutional, the separation-of-powers questions raised by the TRA need not necessitate a future legal challenge by the executive. Rather, given Washington’s political and military commitment to Taiwan, the constitutional issues surrounding the law are more likely to be resolved through political rather than judicial processes. On balance, then, the questions posed by the TRA reflect the inherently political character of the Constitution’s foreign affairs power—a power that relies more on inter-branch political dynamics than on strict constitutional rules. This article examines the emerging legal framework for algorithmic discrimination in hiring through the lens of Mobley v.

Workday (2024), where a California court established that AI hiring platforms can be held liable as agents of employers under employment discrimination law. It identifies two distinct challenges in addressing algorithmic bias: first, establishing liability when employers delegate hiring decisions to third-party AI platforms, and second, evaluating discrimination claims when employers use in-house AI tools. Next, through analysis of precedential cases like Association of Mexican-American Educators v. California (2000) and Williams v. City of Montgomery (1984), it demonstrates how courts have historically extended liability to third parties exercising control over employment decisions. It concludes that while Mobley successfully addresses the first challenge by preventing employers from evading discrimination law through outsourcing, significant questions remain about proving negligence or disparate impact when employers deploy AI tools directly.

The Harvard Law School is the home of more than a dozen student-edited journals. The HLS Journals keeps the conversation going by letting anyone around the world take part in the legal conversations sparked by student-edited journals. Please note that the following journals are run independently of the Office of Community Engagement, Equity, and Belonging:The Harvard Law Review, and the Journal of Law and Public Policy should be contacted directly. The Harvard Business Law Review (HBLR) stands at the intersection of law and business. Publishing thematic issues that feature short, policy-oriented essays from academics, practitioners, and regulators, HBLR promises to bridge the worlds of theory and practice. For students, the journal provides an unmatched opportunity to engage with business law beyond the classroom.

Founded in 1966 as a “journal of revolutionary constitutional law,” the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review has become the nation’s leading progressive law journal. Our mission is to promote social change and intellectual debate through the publication and advancement of innovative legal scholarship, and we are committed to exploring new directions and perspectives in the struggle for social... CR-CL fosters progressive dialogue within the legal community by publishing two issues annually, featuring innovative articles. Recent volumes address such issues as affirmative action, civil liberties in the aftermath of September 11th, housing and employment discrimination, the rights of immigrants, and criminal justice. CR-CL is also committed to fostering progressive dialogue on the Harvard Law School campus and serves as an intellectual and social meeting place for a diverse group of progressive students. Visit harvardcrcl.org for more information.

Founded in 1887 by future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, the Harvard Law Review is an entirely student-edited journal that is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Approximately ninety student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of four, carry out day-to-day operations. Aside from serving as an important academic forum for legal scholarship, the Review is designed to be an effective research tool for practicing lawyers and students of the law. The Review also provides opportunities for its members to develop their own editing and writing skills. All student writing is unsigned, reflecting the fact that many members of the Review, in addition to the author and supervising editor, make a contribution to each published piece.

Harvard Law Review Gannett House 1511 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 Phone: (617) 495-4650 (Business Office) Fax: (617) 495-2748 E-mail: lawrev@law.harvard.edu The Harvard Law Review has elected Sophia M. Hunt ’25 as its 138th president. Hunt succeeds Apsara A. Iyer ’24.

“Sophia is a visionary scholar and editor, who has exhibited unparalleled dedication to the Law Review. Her interdisciplinary research underscores her commitment to insightful legal scholarship, our vibrant community, and academia more broadly. A talented leader, Sophia has already had a profound influence on so many of her fellow editors, and we are thrilled to see her lead Volume 138,” said Iyer. Hunt graduated from Harvard College in 2019 with an A.B. in History & Literature. Her desire to understand and address the needs of indigent criminal defendants led her to pursue doctoral studies in Sociology at Stanford University.

After spending three years researching and writing at the intersection of law and society and receiving her M.A. in Sociology, she took a leave of absence from her Ph.D. program to begin pursuing her Juris Doctor and enrolled at Harvard Law School in the fall of 2022. Working at the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of D.C. during her 1L summer, Hunt found that she was drawn to criminal defense advocacy. At Harvard Law School, she is a member of Harvard Defenders, the Prison Legal Assistance Project (PLAP), and the Black Law Students Association (BLSA).

People Also Search

• Harvard Law Review
• Harvard Law Review - Wikipedia
• Harvard Law Review Archives - Harvard Law School
• Harvard Law Review | JSTOR
• Articles - Harvard Law Review
• Spring 2025 Issue — Harvard Undergraduate Law Review
• Student Journals and Publications - Harvard Law School
• Explore By Topic - Harvard Law Review
• The Harvard Law Review Association on JSTOR
• Sophia M. Hunt '25 elected president of the Harvard Law Review