Harvard Law Review

The Harvard Law Review is run by students and focuses on publishing a journal dedicated to legal research and scholarship. It releases issues every month from November to June, with each volume containing about 2,500 pages. While it operates closely with Harvard Law School, it is officially independent. The student editors are responsible for all editorial and organizational choices, and they work alongside a small professional business team of three to manage daily operations.

National, Student/Alumni

English

Journal

Outlet metrics

Domain Authority

Ranking

Global

#185556

United States

#64785

Law and Government/Legal

#345

Traffic sources

Monthly visitors

Articles

Interpreting Legal Texts

1 month ago | harvardlawreview.org | Stephen Breyer |Alana Frederick |Thomas Nielsen

On March 3, 2025, the Harvard Law Review hosted Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Judge Kevin Newsom, Alana Frederick, and Thomas Nielsen (HLR ’26) for a discussion on statutory and constitutional interpretation. That conversation is reproduced in this transcript. Otto Barenberg: Welcome, everyone. Good afternoon. I’m Otto Barenberg, the Articles, Book Reviews, and Commentaries Chair for Volume 139 at the Harvard Law Review.
Professor Gerald E. Frug

2 months ago | harvardlawreview.org | David Barron |John Goldberg |Richard Ford |Michelle Anderson

The editors of the Harvard Law Review respectfully dedicate this issue to Professor Gerald E. Frug. Chief Judge David J. Barron*Jerry gave me a whole way of seeing the world. He introduced me to the field of law — local government law — that would become my own for more than a decade. While on the faculty together, we collaborated on just about everything. I first met Jerry at Harvard Law School when I went to see him about a student Note I had written.
Sweeping Section Three Under the Rug: A Comment on Trump v. Anderson

Jan 10, 2025 | harvardlawreview.org | William Baude |Michael Stokes Paulsen

“Great cases,” the saying goes, “like hard cases make bad law.” The aphorism, from Justice Holmes’s dissent in the Northern Securities case, came with an explanation:Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.
Pragmatism or Textualism

Jan 10, 2025 | harvardlawreview.org | Stephen Breyer

For more than forty years, I have served as a federal judge — about fourteen years on a court of appeals, and twenty-eight years as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judges of these courts often interpret words that appear in statutes or in the Constitution, explaining what they mean and how they apply. When I explain to a group of middle-school students what this job is like, I use an example I found in a French newspaper.
Community Integration of People with Disabilities A Quarter Century After

Jan 8, 2025 | harvardlawreview.org | Michael Stein |Benjamin A. Barsky |Lisa I. Iezzoni

June 2024 marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) decision in Olmstead v. L.C. holding that the unnecessary institutional segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination. Olmstead established the principle that people with disabilities must receive state-funded supports in the “most integrated settings” — that is, within the communities where they live.
Lisa I. Iezzoni, Author at Harvard Law Review

Jan 7, 2025 | harvardlawreview.org | Michael Stein |Benjamin A. Barsky |Lisa I. Iezzoni

Author Lisa I. Iezzoni Lisa I. Iezzoni, MD, MSc is Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and based at the Health Policy Research Center, Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Iezzoni has conducted numerous studies examining the health care experiences of persons with disability, focusing on primary, reproductive health, and cancer care. She has also explored home-based supportive services.
Benjamin A. Barsky

Jan 7, 2025 | harvardlawreview.org | Michael Stein |Benjamin A. Barsky |Lisa I. Iezzoni

Author Benjamin A. Barsky Benjamin A. Barsky is Associate Professor of Law at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco and Consortium Advisory Board member of the UCSF-UC Law SF Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy. Barsky’s work sits at the intersection of law, health care policy, and public health ethics.
Originalism's Age of Ironies

Nov 20, 2024 | harvardlawreview.org | Sherif Girgis

Guns, abortion, religious establishments, presidential power: While today’s Supreme Court identifies as originalist, it has settled constitutional questions on these and many other issues using history and tradition, not just original meaning. Scholars debate whether this trend can be squared with originalism. Last Term, the originalist Justices themselves joined the fray. Their reflections might foreshadow the reasoning and outcomes of future cases, including on hot-button issues.
Politics of Belonging: Anti-Black Racism, Xenophobia, and Disinformation

Nov 18, 2024 | harvardlawreview.org | Karla McKanders

Racialized and xenophobic disinformation reinforces an anti-Black and anti-immigrant vision of America where powerful actors intentionally promulgate false information that becomes the norm defining who belongs in this country. Historically, these norms have been codified into U.S. citizenship and naturalization laws privileging assimilation and defining who has the right to reside in America.
Power and Possibility at the U.S. Supreme

Nov 10, 2024 | harvardlawreview.org | Karen Tani

“Dead, dead, dead.” This quote might have referred to any number of apparent casualties of the 2023 Supreme Court Term — from the Court’s decades-old approach to reviewing agency action (“Chevron deference”), to federal prosecutors’ chances of holding former President Donald J. Trump accountable for alleged interference with the 2020 presidential election, to the billionaire Sackler family’s bold attempt to use a corporate bankruptcy settlement to finalize their liability for the opioid crisis.