A legal publication run by @StanfordLaw students since 1948, providing expert legal scholarship, analysis, and commentary. Tweets and RTs are not endorsements.
Stanford, CA
Joined March 2011
- Tweets1.3K
- Following319
- Followers17K
- Likes411
The Stanford Law Review Online is seeking legal scholarship under 10,000 words. Our website and Scholastica portal will open on Friday, October 30, 2026, at 9 AM PDT. We look forward to reviewing your submissions!
When Derek Mobley was rejected from many jobs by Workday’s AI screener, his intentional discrimination claim failed because algorithms have no intent. Keith Swisher argues this exposes a mismatch between civil rights law and AI systems. stanfordlawreview.org/online…
Law enforcement agencies increasingly employ AI in their investigatory methods. Jeffrey L. Vagle situates this phenomenon within the framework of agnotology and analyzes the implications of relying on AI systems in this context. stanfordlawreview.org/online…
Hoang Pham, Hannah Cha, and Rashon Poole argue that contemporary disputes over "AI bias" are normative disagreements about representation—whether AI systems should mirror the world or be designed to promote a more inclusive future. stanfordlawreview.org/online…
Andrea Roth and Rebecca Wexler contend that courts should apply existing privilege law to protect at least some exchanges between litigants and AI chatbots, and that doing so could help address the legal services crisis. stanfordlawreview.org/online…
Tyler Valeska argues that schools’ use of automated student surveillance software implicates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and creates two distinct civil-rights concerns for students who need special education. stanfordlawreview.org/online…
Can AI make civil rights enforcement easier? @yunsieg and @jacob_eisler argue that algorithms are more consistent and replicable than humans, which makes proving disparate impact easier. The real obstacle for litigants is informational. review.law.stanford.edu/onli…
Ralph Richard Banks, Guy-Uriel Charles, Spencer Overton and Victor Y. Wu argue that the principal framework for addressing AI-driven discrimination is disparate impact law, which is threatened by "colorblindness." review.law.stanford.edu/onli……i-pervaded-world/
The Stanford Law Review Online’s Special Collection Essays are now available on our website! Check out all eight Essays on Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Civil Rights. stanfordlawreview.org/online…
The Stanford Law Review’s submission portal is now closed. The portal for publication in Volume 80 will reopen in early 2026. As always, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at [email protected].
SLR's submission portal for publication in Volume 79 is now open! We look forward to reviewing your submissions. stanford-law-review.scholast…
Professor Maureen Brady’s recent piece in the Stanford Law Review Online was cited by Justice Barrett in her concurrence in today’s Supreme Court decision Wolford v. Lopez. Give it a read!
stanfordlawreview.org/online…
Tune in to @Slate's Amicus podcast, where @davidhgans joins @Dahlialithwick to discuss his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article on the forgotten Black Framers of the Constitution. slate.com/podcasts/amicus/20…
Stanford Law Review’s summer submission cycle and our Scholastica submission portal will open on Friday, July 17, 2026, at 5 PM PDT. We look forward to reviewing submissions on a rolling basis!
Stanford Law Review retweeted
New paper on @SSRN with @e_garrett_west, "The Takings Clause Cause of Action," forthcoming in the @StanLRev. Does the Takings Clause have an implied cause of action? If not, does the Constitution speak to the Clause's enforcement? Abstract here and link below!
