• "Marking 200 Years of Legal Education: Traditions of Change, Reasoned Debate, and Finding Differences and Commonalities," by Martha Minow
• "Race Liberalism and the Deradicalization of Racial Reform," by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw
• "The Socratic Method in the Age of Trauma," by Jeannie Suk Gersen
• "Thayer, Holmes, Brandeis: Conceptions of Judicial Review, Factfinding, and Proportionality," by Vicki C. Jackson
• "Without the Pretense of Legislative Intent," by John F. Manning
• "Law's Boundaries," by Frederick Schauer
• "Bureaucracy and Distrust: Landis, Jaffe, and Kagan on the Administrative State," by Adrian Vermeule
The issue also includes a comprehensive Index for all nine issues of volume 130.
Principal essays are written by recognized legal scholars, including contributions in celebration of Harvard Law School's 200th Anniversary.
• 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).
Professors Fischl and Paul explain law school exams in ways no one
has before, all with an eye toward improving the reader’s performance.
The book begins by describing the difference between educational
cultures that praise students for “right answers,” and the law school
culture that rewards nuanced analysis of ambiguous situations in which
more than one approach may be correct. Enormous care is devoted to
explaining precisely how and why legal analysis frequently produces such
But the authors don’t stop with mere description. Instead, Getting to Maybe
teaches how to excel on law school exams by showing the reader how
legal analysis can be brought to bear on examination problems. The book
contains hints on studying and preparation that go well beyond
conventional advice. The authors also illustrate how to argue both sides
of a legal issue without appearing wishy-washy or indecisive. Above
all, the book explains why exam questions may generate feelings of
uncertainty or doubt about correct legal outcomes and how the student
can turn these feelings to his or her advantage.
In sum, although the authors believe that no exam guide can
substitute for a firm grasp of substantive material, readers who devote
the necessary time to learning the law will find this book an invaluable
guide to translating learning into better exam performance.
Attend a Getting to Maybe seminar! Click here for more information.
* 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).