* Article, "Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction," by Samuel L. Bray
* Article, "Gubernatorial Administration," by Miriam Seifter
* Book Review, "Crafting Precedent," by Paul J. Watford, Richard C. Chen, and Marco Basile
* Note, "Proving Breach of Former-Client Confidentiality"
* Note, "The Harvard Plan That Failed Asian Americans"
In addition, the issue features student commentary on Recent Cases, including such subjects as the Establishment Clause and prayer led by County Commissioners; due process for student disciplinary hearings on sexual misconduct in universities under Title IX; armed career criminals and intent for burglary; genocide victims and suit against their own countries under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; expert witnesses and causation in asbestos cases; and immigration law's local enforcement involving ICE detainees.
Also included is commentary on President Trump's signing statement objecting to the Act imposing sanctions against Russia and its requirement of Congressional review over Presidential waivers. Finally, the issue includes several summaries of Recent Publications.
The Harvard Law Review is offered in a quality digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked footnotes, active URLs, legible tables, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting. This current issue of the Review is December 2017, the second issue of academic year 2017-2018 (Volume 131).
Authors are recognized legal scholars, and student-editors contribute Notes and Recent Cases commentary.
• Foreword: “Does the Constitution Mean What It Says?," by David A. Strauss
• Comment: “Imperfect Statutes, Imperfect Courts: Understanding Congress’s Plan in the Era of Unorthodox Lawmaking,” by Abbe R. Gluck
• Comment: “Zivotofsky II as Precedent in the Executive Branch,” by Jack Goldsmith
• Comment: “A New Birth of Freedom?: Obergefell v. Hodges,” by Kenji Yoshino
In addition, the first issue of each new volume provides an extensive summary of the important cases of the previous Supreme Court docket, covering a wide range of legal, political, and constitutional subjects. Student commentary on Leading Cases of the 2014 Term includes recent cases on: private rights of action and Medicaid; government speech under the First Amendment; judicial campaign speech; Fourth Amendment standing; reasonable mistakes of law for searches and seizure; regulatory takings under the Fifth Amendment; preliminary injunctions in death penalty cases; separation of powers in bankruptcy jurisdiction; legislative control of redistricting; racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment; dormant commerce clause and personal income tax; changing interpretive rules in administrative law; residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act; cost-benefit analysis under the Clean Air Act; mens rea for violating federal threats law; disparate impact and racial equality in fair housing law; nondelegation doctrine in the context of railroad-passenger law; religious liberty and land use; Sherman Act state action immunity; and destruction of evidence under Sarbanes-Oxley.
Complete statistical graphs and tables of the Court's actions and results during the Term are included; these summaries and statistics, including voting patterns of individual justices, have been considered very useful to scholars of the Court in law and political science. The issue includes a linked Table of Cases and citations for the opinions. Finally, the issue features two summaries of Recent Publications.
The Harvard Law Review is offered in a quality digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked footnotes, active URLs, legible tables, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting. This current issue of the Review is November 2015, the first issue of academic year 2015-2016 (Volume 129).
The new chapters and updated analyses in this Third Edition reflect recent, relevant court cases dealing with culture, race, gender, religion, and personal status. Drawing on court materials, state and federal legislation, and legal ethnographies, the text analyzes the ongoing tension between, on the one hand, the need of different groups for cultural autonomy and equal rights, and on the other, the necessity of national unity and security. The text integrates the authors' commentary with case descriptions set in historical, cultural, political, and economic context. While the authors' thesis is that law is an instrument of social policy that has generally furthered an assimilationist agenda in American society, they also point out how in different periods, under different circumstances, and with regard to different groups, law has also some opportunity for cultural autonomy.
Featured articles in this issue are from such recognized scholars as Jody Freeman and Jim Rossi, on the coordination of administrative agencies when they share regulatory space, and James Whitman, reviewing Bernard Harcourt's new book on the illusion of free markets as to prisons. Student contributions explore the law relating to antitrust law and business deception; the failed Google Books settlement; mergers and acquisitions; materiality in securities law; administrative law; patentable subject matter; and paid sick leave. Finally, the issue includes two Book Notes.
• Article, “Uncovering Coordinated Interagency Adjudication,” by Bijal Shah
• Note, “Deference and the Federal Arbitration Act: The NLRB’s Determination of Substantive Statutory Rights”
• Note, “Education Policy Litigation as Devolution”
• Note, “Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures”
• Note, “Copyright Reform and the Takings Clause”
In addition, the issue features student commentary on Recent Cases and policy resolutions, including such subjects as constitutional protection for teacher tenure, suspicionless street stop of suspect’s companion, warrants to search foreign emails, confrontation clause in sentence selection phase of capital case, subject matter jurisdiction of tribal courts, physician inquiries into gun ownership and freedom of speech, reviewability of FDA inaction on pet drug products, and veto of a UN Security Council resolution on Syrian conflict. Finally, the issue features several summaries of Recent Publications.
The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2500 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is January 2015, the third issue of academic year 2014-2015 (Volume 128). The digital edition features active Contents, linked notes, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting.