Stanford Law & Policy Review

Stanford Law & Policy Review (SLPR) is one of the most prominent policy journals in the nation and informs public discourse by publishing articles that analyze the intersection of our legal system with local, state, and federal policy. SLPR is ideologically neutral and solicits articles from authors who represent a diversity of political viewpoints.

Founded in 1989 by Stanford Law School students, SLPR has long been a forum not only for academics but also for high-profile policymakers to publish articles on hot-button issues. Past contributors include Bill Clinton, Joseph Biden, John McCain, Charles Schumer, Charles Rangel, James Baker, Russ Feingold, and Jeb Bush. SLPR has been cited multiple times by the U.S. Supreme Court and over fifty times by other federal courts. It is published widely and available at all major law schools and policy thinktanks.

For more information, please click on one of the following links: 
Prospective Authors | Subscribers | Members (log-in required) 

We are pleased to present Volume 26, Issue 2 (2014-15) below.

For shorter pieces on more current topics, please visit SLPR Online. This online platform was created in 2013 and complements SLPR's print journal by publishing pieces on a rolling basis.

Current Issue

Volume 26, Issue 2: Religion and the Law

Articles

Addressing Three Problems in Commentary on Catholics at the Supreme Court by Reference to Three Decades of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs

Kevin C. Walsh
Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law

Much commentary about Catholic Justices serving on the Supreme Court suffers from various shortcomings. In identifying and countering these shortcomings, this Article assesses the votes of the Justices - Catholic and non-Catholic alike - in the full set of cases form the Renquist Court and the Roberts Court (through June 2014) in which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed an amicus curiae brief.

Read more about Addressing Three Problems in Commentary on Catholics at the Supreme Court by Reference to Three Decades of Catholic Bishops' Amicus Briefs
  • October 2015
  • 26 Stan.L.& Pol'y Rev. 411
  • Article

Archetypes of Faith: How Americans See, and Believe in, Their Constitution

Aliza Plener Cover
Associate Professor, University of Idaho College of Law

In this Article, I offer a new framework to illuminate how American faith in the Constitution is sustained over time. I build upon the evocative Passover story of the Four Sons—one of whom is wise, one wicked, one simple, and one who does not know how to ask—and argue that these archetypes resonate deeply in the constitutional context.  

Read more about Archetypes of Faith: How Americans See, and Believe in, Their Constitution
  • October 2015
  • 26 Stan.L.& Pol'y Rev. 555
  • Article

What DNA Can and Cannot Say: Perspectives of Immigrant Families About the Use of Genetic Testing in Immigration

Llilda P. Barata
Post-doctoral Scholar, Division of Biostatistics and Statistical Genomics, Washington University School of Medicine
Helene Starks
Associate Professor, Department of Bioethics and Humanities: University of Washington School of Medicine
Maureen Kelley
Associate Professor of Bioethics, The Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford
Patricia Kuszler
Vice Dean and Charles I. Stone Professor of Law at the University of Washington School of Law
Wylie Burke
Professor, Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington

This study collected empirical data through family interviews to understand the experiences and attitudes of individuals who have taken a DNA test to prove a family relationship for immigration purposes. Based on study results, we present a set of recommendations to improve the processes with which DNA testing is applied to immigration cases.  

Read more about What DNA Can and Cannot Say: Perspectives of Immigrant Families About the Use of Genetic Testing in Immigration
  • October 2015
  • 26 Stan.L.& Pol'y Rev. 597
  • Article

Notes

Knowledge Is Power: Assessing the Legal Challenges of Teaching Character in Charter Schools

Lilah Hume Wolf

This Note focuses on two areas of legal concern prompted by conversations with administrators at various charter schools: First Amendment challenges regarding character education, and liability associated with so-called “inclusive” education. 

Read more about Knowledge Is Power: Assessing the Legal Challenges of Teaching Character in Charter Schools
  • October 2015
  • 26 Stan.L.& Pol'y Rev. 671
  • Note

To Protect and Spy: The San Francisco Police Department & The Civil Rights Ordinance

Neel Lalchandani

This Note begins by examining the problems with the SFPD’s involvement in federal counterterrorism investigations. It then considers how San Francisco’s Civil Rights Ordinance presented an innovative yet simple approach to remedying these problems. 

Read more about To Protect and Spy: The San Francisco Police Department & The Civil Rights Ordinance
  • October 2015
  • 26 Stan.L.& Pol'y Rev. 701
  • Note

Latest Online

Religious Objections to the Death Penalty After Hobby Lobby

Danieli Evans
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, National Constitution Center

In Glossip v. Gross,[1] the Supreme Court held that in order to prevail on the claim that a method of execution is cruel and unusual punishment, petitioners must prove that there is an available alternative that entails a lesser risk of pain.... Read more about Religious Objections to the Death Penalty After Hobby Lobby

  • August 10, 2015
  • 27 Stan.L.& Pol'y Rev. 1
  • Articles