Founded in 1933, the Law Review counted among its first editors Edward Levi, Stanley Kaplan, and Abraham Ribicoff, and featured in its first pages the work of William O. Douglas, Joseph Beale, and Robert Hutchins. Read more about our history

The University of Chicago Law Review

Published quarterly, the Law Review features articles, essays, comments, and book reviews. Dialogue, the Law Review's online component, continues the discussions provoked in print and invites new exchanges online. View prior issues

A Journal of Distinguished Legal Commentary

Accepting submissions year-round, the Law Review seeks manuscripts that make a significant, original contribution to their field. Submissions

A Proud Tradition of Trend-Setting Scholarship

From international corporations and foreign states to academic libraries and private citizens, the Law Review reaches subscribers in over thirty-eight countries across the globe. Subscribe to the Law Review

Reaching a Worldwide Readership


New Issue! Volume 82.3 Is Now Live!

Check out the newest edition of The University of Chicago Law Review on our "Issues" page or by clicking here!

The University of Chicago Law Review Dialogue

Online Symposium

Grassroots Innovation & Regulatory Adaptation


Food Trucks, Incremental Innovation, and Regulatory Ruts

Beth Kregor

Regulating the Underground: Secret Supper Clubs, Pop-Up Restaurants, and the Role of Law

Sarah Schindler

The Political Economy of Crowdsourcing: Markets for Labor, Rewards, and Securities 

Richard A. Epstein

A Conceptual Framework for the Regulation of Cryptocurrencies

Omri Marian

Tax Regulation, Transportation Innovation, and the Sharing Economy

Jordan M. Barry & Paul L. Caron

The Social Costs of Uber

Brishen Rogers

Airbnb: A Case Study in Occupancy Regulation and Taxation

Roberta A. Kaplan & Michael L. Nadler

Self-Regulation and Innovation in the Peer-to-Peer Sharing Economy

Molly Cohen & Arun Sundararajan

* * *

The Habeas Optimist

Lee Kovarsky

For those who believe that legal rules are supposed to predictably map events onto outcomes, federal postconviction law is a frustrating mess. Most of those who try to make sense of it end up with some variant of a pretty cynical model: if the claimant is an inmate convicted in state court, then federal relief is unavailable. Some of us, however, remain cautiously receptive to theories that high-court habeas outcomes express a more complex function. In Habeas and the Roberts Court, Professor Aziz Huq establishes himself as the field’s foremost academic optimist.

81 U Chi L Rev Dialogue 108 [Essay PDF]

A response to 81 U Chi L Rev 519 [Article PDF]

Inter Partes Review: An Early Look at the Numbers

Brian J. Love and Shawn Ambwani

In the roughly two years since inter partes review (IPR) replaced  inter partes reexamination, petitioners have filed almost two thousand requests for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the validity of issued US patents. As partial data on IPR has trickled out via the blogosphere, interest from patent practitioners and judges has grown to a fever (and sometimes fevered) pitch. To date, however, no commentator has collected a comprehensive set of statistics on IPR. Moreover, what little data currently exists focuses on overall institution and invalidation rates—data that, alone, gives us little idea whether IPR is thus far accomplishing its original goal of serving as an efficient alternative to defending patent suits filed in federal court, particularly those initiated by nonpracticing entities (NPEs).

81 U Chi L Rev Dialogue 93 [Essay PDF]