About Us

The Boston College Law Review is the oldest scholarly publication at Boston College Law School. The Review publishes articles concerning legal issues of national interest. The Review publishes five issues each year that include articles and essays written by prominent outside authors, such as Professor Vikram David Amar, Professor Herbert Hovenkamp, and Professor Jeremy Waldron. The following provides an example of the Review’s range of subject matter:

  • In his January 2016 article, Green Ethics for Lawyers, Tom Lininger argues that the ethical rules for lawyers, which encourage zealous advocacy on behalf of clients, should also incentivize lawyers to take steps that could minimize harm to the environment. Professor Lininger proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct—including a liberalization of the confidentiality rules, expansion of lawyers’ counseling duties, a reconceptualization of third-party harm, an enlarged scope of supervisory responsibility, and a redefinition of pro bono service—to establish opportunities and obligations for lawyers to promote environmental health.
  • In her article The Grapes of Wrath: On the Health of Immigration Detainees, published in the January 2016 issue of the Review, Stacey Tovino challenges the lack of health care provided to individuals in United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Many of these individuals are physically and emotionally vulnerable at the time of initial confinement, and many have died while in ICE custody. Professor Tovino proposes using state and federal health law as a model for change. Professor Tovino uses involuntary commitment laws, long-term care facility laws, and behavioral health laws to provide a lens through which the lack of access to health care in detention might be assessed and through which the unenforceable standards governing detention centers might be improved.
  • David Noll‘s article Constitutional Evasion and the Confrontation Puzzle, argues that the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington, holding that “testimonial” evidence triggers a right to confront the responsible “witness,” is best understood as an attempt to regulate governmental evasion of the basic right to be confronted with witnesses who give live testimony in a legal proceeding. The Court, however, did not acknowledge the need to regulate evasion of the confrontation right, nor did it grapple with important questions a legal policymaker regulating evasion of the law must address. This account suggests a reorientation of confrontation doctrine that would permit the Court to overcome the divisions and theoretical uncertainty that plagues post-Crawford jurisprudence.

In addition to articles written by outside academics, the Review prints the work of its student staff writers, many of whom publish notes during their third year. Recent editions have contained student notes examining such diverse issues as tipper/tippee liability under the misappropriation theory of insider trading, plea bargains struck under the threat of enemy combatant detention, and balancing women’s reproductive rights against a pharmacist’s conscientious objection. The Review’s second-year staff members also prepare short comments on recent federal circuit court decisions, which may be published in the Review’s electronic supplement. The Review also organizes, sponsors, and publishes articles from academic symposia. The 2015 symposium was entitled “The Centennial of the Estate and Gift Tax: Perspectives and Recommendations.”