The Stanford Law Review was organized in 1948 (see Warren Christopher's 1948 President's Page from Volume 1 of the Review). Each year the Law Review publishes one volume, comprised of six separate issues. Each issue contains material written by student members of the Law Review, other Stanford law students, and outside contributors, such as law professors, judges, and practicing lawyers. Beginning in 2011, the Stanford Law Review Online supplements the Law Review's print editions by publishing short, accessible, and timely pieces of legal scholarship on this website (see Introducing the Stanford Law Review Online).

The Law Review has two principal functions: to educate and foster intellectual discourse among the student membership, and to contribute to legal scholarship by addressing important legal and social issues. Law Review participants select, edit, and publish articles and notes on the cutting edge of legal scholarship. Through these activities, they develop important research, editorial, administrative, and teaching skills. Editors are trained to critically and comprehensively evaluate submissions. Through a team-editing process, they address the work's analysis, writing style, research, organization, and accuracy. In addition, student authors who submit notes for publication receive extensive editorial assistance that helps them write more clearly and persuasively.

The Law Review is operated entirely by Stanford Law School students and is fully independent of faculty and administration review or supervision. The organization is self-supporting and derives its income principally from subscriptions and copyright royalties.

For a concise account of the beginnings of the Law Review, see, for example, John R. McDonough, The Stanford Law Review: In the Beginning, 20 Stan. L. Rev. 401 (1968).

For more information, please contact a member of the Stanford Law Review's executive board.


For current and past listings of Stanford Law Review editors, visit our mastheads page.


Recent issues of the Stanford Law Review print edition are available in eBook format on AmazonBarnes & Noble, and iTunes.

Membership Information

The process for becoming a member of the Stanford Law Review is open to all transfer and first-year Stanford Law School students. Members are selected at the end of their first year through a blind-graded exercise that tests candidates on their editing skills and legal writing ability. Out of the first-year class and transfer students, roughly forty-five membership offers are extended.

Candidates who accept membership offers must serve a two-year commitment to the Review. During their first year on the Review, members are part of editing teams that substantively edit, bluebook, and proofread the content that goes into the Review. During their second year, members become senior editors that lead editing teams and serve on various committees (such as the Articles Committee, the Notes Committee, the Development Committee, and the Online Committee). Alternatively, those in their second year of membership are eligible to serve on the Stanford Law Review's Executive Board. The Stanford Law Review strongly encourages all current Stanford Law School first-year students to consider becoming a part of the Review.

The Stanford Law Review is committed to diversity in its membership. We have demonstrated this commitment in a number of ways, including:

  • Institutionalizing efforts to recruit diverse candidates by adding a focus on diversity to the responsibilities of the Senior Development Editor in charge of membership;
  • Conducting a critical review of the candidate exercise with experienced professors in order to minimize the disparate impact of the exercise upon students of color;
  • Holding informational sessions for purposes of recruiting students of color; and
  • Reaching out to students (and especially women) from typically underrepresented career interests (corporate, business, public interest, and others).
Connect with SLR

Stanford Law Review on Twitter   Stanford Law Review on Facebook   Stanford Law Review on Google+   Stanford Law Review on Google+

SLR Mailing List

Subscribe to receive updates from the Stanford Law Review.

SLR in the News

The Washington Post mentions Richard A. Sander's article A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.

SCOTUSBlog references Jason Zarrow and William Milliken's SLR Online article Retroactivity, the Due Process Clause, and the Federal Question in Montgomery v. Louisiana.

The Atlantic mentions Keith Cunningham's article Father Time: Flexible Work Arrangements and the Law Firm's Failure of the Family.

Justice Scalia cites Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs in his concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Breyer cites Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Kagan cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in her dissent in Yates v. United States.

SCOTUSBlog references Mark Rienzi's SLR Online article Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The National Journal praises Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The Economist references The Drone as a Privacy Catalyst.

The Green Bag lauds Toby Heytens's article Reassignment as an "exemplar of good legal writing" from 2014.

The Economist mentions Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm in the cover article of its August 30 issue.

The Economist writes a column on Stephen Bainbridge's and Todd Henderson's article Boards-R-Us.

SCOTUSBlog cites Eric Hansford's Volume 63 note Measuring the Effects of Specialization with Circuit Split Resolutions in one of its Academic Highlight blog posts.

The Atlantic and The National Journal cite Jeffrey Rosen's SLR Online article The Right to Be Forgotten.

WSJ MoneyBeat writes a column about Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm.

Education Law Prof Blog discusses Joshua Weishart's article Transcending Equality Versus Adequacy.

The D.C. Circuit cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in Loving v. IRS (PDF).

Constitutional Law Prof Blog discusses Toby Heytens's article Reassignment.

Justice Scalia cites Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Federal Statutes in his dissent in Windsor.