Current Issue: Volume 33, Issue 1

Toward an Optimal Decarceration Strategy
Stanford Law & Policy Review
With mounting support for dramatic criminal justice reform, the question is no longer whether we should decarcerate American prisons but how. This question is far more complicated than it might seem. We could cut the prison population in half, for example, by drastically shortening sentences. Or we could reduce prison…
Read MoreUntransit: Remote Work and the Transformation of Zoning
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Toward Fairer Representation in State Legislatures
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Can I Have Your Baby? Paternalism, Autonomy, and Money in California's "Surrogacy-Friendly" Statutory Scheme
Stanford Law & Policy Review
"Law and" the OLC's Article II Immunity Memos
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Taking From States: Sovereign Immunity's Preclusive Effect on Private Takings of State Land
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Barriers and Facilitators to Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act by the Child Welfare System: Insights from Interviews with Disabled Parents, Child Welfare Workers, and Attorneys
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Online Articles

Toward Textual Internet Immunity
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Internet immunity doctrine is broken. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, online entities are absolutely immune from lawsuits related to content authored by third parties. The law has been essential to the internet’s development over the last twenty years, but it has not kept pace with…
Read MoreDo They Really Ask That? A National Survey of Criminal History Inquiries on Law School Applications
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Californians with a Felony Conviction are Now Eligible for Jury Service: How Would They Know?
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy
Stanford Law and Policy Review Online
First in the Nation: Arizona's Regulatory Sandbox
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Limiting Local Control to Save California's Soul
How Congress Can Make the Earmark Process Work
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 think tanks.
2021-2022 Leadership
Editors-in-Chief:
Rico Altman-Merino
Dakota Foster
Executive Editor:
Jules Ross
Lead Online Editor:
Jake Seidman
Lead Article Editor:
James Stone
Lead Symposium Editor:
Chris Suhler
Lead Notes Editor:
Grace Kavinsky
Contact
SLPR’s office is located in room 79G of the Stanford Law School building.
Phone: (650) 723-2747
Fax: (650) 724-5714
Email: Rico Altman-Merino (russa@stanford.edu)
& Dakota Foster (dakota.foster@stanford.edu)
Mailing Address:
Stanford Law & Policy Review
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Diversity
At its core, SLPR is devoted to the discovery and transmission of legal knowledge. SLPR cannot be limited in its methods and ways of thinking, or confined to one individual’s or a single community’s experiences. To further this mission, we must bring a broad range of ideas and approaches.
SLPR strives to ensure that a diversity of cultures, races and ethnicities, genders, political and religious beliefs, physical and learning differences, sexual orientations and identities is represented. Such diversity will inspire new angles of inquiry, new modes of analysis, and new solutions, contributing to our core mission.
To advance legal scholarship, it is essential to be exposed to views and cultures other than one’s own and to have one’s opinions and assumptions challenged. Such engagement expands our horizons, enables understanding across difference, prevents complacency and promotes intellectual breadth.
Our diversity ensures our strength as an intellectual community. In today’s world, diversity represents the key to excellence and achievement.