Check Out the National High School Law Review, Vol. II

Eugene Volokh |The Volokh Conspiracy | 8.22.2026 4:57 PM

It's a project of Studium; Studium's Constitutional Law Advisory Board includes Prof. and National Constitution Center CEO Jeffrey Rosen, Prof. and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen, Prof. and former Chief Judge Diane Wood, Prof. and Judge Doug Ginsburg, and Prof. Adam White. Volume II is now out, and it contains these articles:

1. Sebastian Lewin, The Unassailable Theory of Liberty
2. Eileen Wang, ICWA's Dual Purpose After Haaland v. Brackeen: Reading Alito's Dissent Alongside Gorsuch's Concurrence
3. Steele Barhydt, On Tyranny
4. Anna Yuras & Piper Schmitz, Why Originalism Should Prevail as the Dominant Method of Interpretation
5. Benjamin Berer, Counterman v. Colorado: Why the Recklessness Standard Fails Victims of Online Threats
6. Morgan Cole, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in the Upside Down: How a Fight Over Fishery Salaries Could Spark an Unintentional Sanctuary for Science
7. Adam Watson, A Campaign Finance System Which Doesn't Work
8. Michelle Wang & Colomba Joulin-Batejat, Burden and Constitutional Risk in Glossip v. Gross
9. Alison Gipstein & Hannah Lewis, Reassessing the Implications of Prior Restraint in the Digital Age as a Result of Ambiguity in New York Times Co. v. United States
10. Kalel Charalambides, Engel v. Vitale and the Illusion of Voluntary Prayer: Religious Neutrality, Psychological Pressure, and the Impact on Students from All Academic, Social, and Cognitive Backgrounds
11. Thomas Houghton & Evan Hernandez, The Alien Tort Statute and America's Betrayal of Universal Justice
12. Emma Di Domenico, A Patchwork System: Why Consumer DNA Databases Require a Federal Framework for Privacy and Protection Interests
13. Sophia O'Connor, Beyond Gideon: The Case for Counsel in Housing Court

Here's the introduction from the founder, Olivia Eve Gross:

It is with great pride that we at Studium introduce this year's edition of the National High School Law Review. Each volume reflects something larger than the collection of notes it contains. It represents a growing community of students and educators across the country who have committed themselves to studying constitutional law, engaging seriously with one another's ideas, and practicing the habits of thoughtful citizenship.

What began as a simple conviction, that students deserve the opportunity to wrestle directly with our nation's most consequential legal questions, has grown into a national movement. This year, we are especially proud to see that movement expanding into new schools, new states, and new classrooms, bringing thousands more students into conversations rooted in evidence, reason, and mutual respect.

The High School Law Review exists to give students an authentic place to think, write, and publish. Through close readings of Supreme Court opinions, sustained classroom discussion, and the publication of their own legal writing, students learn to analyze arguments with precision, communicate with clarity, and engage in constitutional reasoning while practicing agreeable disagreement. These are not simply academic skills. They are habits that prepare students to participate thoughtfully in civic life.

At the heart of this work is the practice of agreeable disagreement. Students are challenged not only to defend their own conclusions but also to understand the strongest versions of perspectives different from their own. They learn to separate ideas from identities, question their own assumptions, and recognize that disagreement, when approached with curiosity and generosity, strengthens rather than weakens a community of learners. The notes collected in this volume reflect that commitment. They demonstrate careful reasoning, genuine inquiry, and a willingness to engage difficult questions with both conviction and respect.

None of this would be possible without the extraordinary educators who make this work accessible to students in classrooms every day. Teachers create the conditions in which students are willing to ask difficult questions, revise their thinking, and engage one another with both rigor and kindness. Their leadership transforms constitutional law from a body of primary sources to be studied into a practice to be lived, and we remain deeply grateful for their partnership.

As our community continues to grow, so too does the significance of this publication. Students from across the country now contribute to a shared body of work, reading and learning from peers whose experiences, perspectives, and communities may differ greatly from their own. The National High School Law Review has become more than an annual publication; it is a national forum where young people discover that meaningful disagreement can be a source of learning rather than division.

To every student whose work appears in these pages, congratulations. Your willingness to think carefully, write thoughtfully, and share your ideas contributes to something much larger than a single legal note. To every teacher, school, and chapter that made this volume possible, thank you for believing in the importance of this work and for helping this community continue to grow.

We are excited by how far this movement has come and even more excited by where it is headed. We hope this edition inspires more schools to join us as we continue building a generation of citizens who know not only how to disagree, but how to do so with reason, respect, and an open mind.

Eugene Volokh is the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor at UCLA School of Law. Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any institution. He is also the co-host of the Free Speech Unmuted podcast.