Stanford Law School

Stanford Law School One of the nation's leading institutions for legal scholarship and education. At Stanford Law School, excellence is a given.

Our community — engaged faculty and students, influential alumni, dedicated staff — is united in its belief that a Stanford Law degree is a powerful tool for change. Our programs —intensive curriculum, hands–on legal clinics, high-profile academic centers — cultivate professional skills and values, inspire new ideas, and engage leaders in developing solutions. And our resources — from cutting-edge

facilities to the diverse advantages of Stanford University — make the Stanford Law campus an ideal environment for exploring and mastering the law. Excellence, innovation, and a commitment to the future — these are Stanford Law School's legacy to each new generation of law students and lawyers. We invite prospective students, partners, and supporters to inspire, innovate, and lead with us.

The Supreme Court's approach to factual evidence is raising serious concerns about judicial integrity, according to Dunc...
09/01/2026

The Supreme Court's approach to factual evidence is raising serious concerns about judicial integrity, according to Duncan Hosie, Director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, writing in The Atlantic. In his analysis, Hosie examines how the Court's conservative majority has repeatedly disregarded evidentiary records carefully established by lower courts.

America's constitutional and procedural order gives district courts special fact-finding tools and responsibilities for good reason. The "clear-error deference" standard typically prevents reviewing courts from setting aside lower court findings unless they are clearly erroneous. However, the Roberts Court's willingness to circumvent this standard represents a troubling departure from institutional norms that protect against the substitution of ideology for legal reasoning.

When the highest court disregards the painstaking work of lower courts to document facts, it abandons a fundamental judicial responsibility—grounding legal power in evidence rather than preference.

Read the full analysis: https://brnw.ch/21x5mc2

Should courts use artificial intelligence? Daniel Ho, the William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law and ...
08/31/2026

Should courts use artificial intelligence? Daniel Ho, the William Benjamin Scott and Luna M. Scott Professor of Law and Director of RegLab, and Olivia Martin, JD/PhD candidate, RegLab Law Student Fellow and Knight-Hennessy Scholar, tackled this question at the D.C. Circuit Judicial Conference with striking findings.

Their research shows frontier AI models can analyze thousands of regulatory comments in minutes and conduct comprehensive statutory surveys—tasks that traditionally take days. But these same models exhibit critical flaws, including hallucinations and accepting fabricated legal premises.

The stakes: Without hands-on experience, courts risk falling behind litigants already using these tools—creating a dangerous information asymmetry in the courtroom.

Read their full analysis: https://brnw.ch/21x5k7l

Research from the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession gets a close look in the most recent New York Times Do...
08/28/2026

Research from the Deborah L. Rhode Center on the Legal Profession gets a close look in the most recent New York Times Docket newsletter.

The study asks: If court records are presumptively public, why are so many federal civil filings sealed? The answer points to a system in which sealing requests are often uncontested, leaving judges as the public’s principal safeguard.

As study co-author Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom told the NYT’s Adam Liptak, there are legitimate reasons for secrecy and real trade-offs. But judges need to do more than simply rubber-stamp requests to seal materials that shape their decisions.

Read more in the NYT (subscription may be required): https://brnw.ch/21x5hM3

Read the Rhode Center’s policy brief: https://brnw.ch/21x5hM4

08/27/2026

Every River Needs a Good Lawyer

“We’re not in the league of the real water warriors. But we’re Californians, we’re outdoor people. We always felt the loss of clear-running healthy rivers and streams would be a loss to future generations.”

For Jim Genes and his brother Dean, a love for rivers instilled in childhood has become a belief they have spent most of their adult lives acting on.

The two brothers grew up in Fresno in the late 1960s and early 1970s, fishing for bluegill and bass on the San Joaquin River with Fifi, a local farmer’s frog-chasing poodle. Their father taught them to fly-fish on the Upper Kings.

Both became whitewater kayakers and watched the West’s postwar dam-building spree take away the rivers they knew.

In 1979, the New Melones Dam was completed on the Stanislaus River, drowning one of California’s most popular whitewater runs. Jim and Dean never dreamed the Stanislaus could be lost under a dam. While others did fight the New Melones Dam, they paid no attention to it, until it was too late.

When the dam builders came for the Upper Kings, Jim and Dean got involved in the fight.

“Over the years, Dean and I have donated to many water and charitable causes that we’re interested in,” Jim says. “We’re not wealthy, and these smaller organizations are forever just trying to raise money to keep the lights on.”

So they went looking for a way to make an impact on a larger scale. The answer was a shift: from writing small checks to various organizations, to directly funding the people who might one day argue to protect rivers and watersheds.

“People only do what the law requires them to do. That’s where law and policy come in—and water lawyers can have that larger impact,” Jim says. “So we asked ourselves, if we can have maximum impact through law, how can we do that?”

What they landed on was clever and specific—the summer between a law student’s first and second year.

“Law students in between their first and second year are super enthusiastic,” Jim says. “So we wanted to create an internship between the first and second year to get students excited about water policy by exposing them to it.”

Public interest internships have long paid less than their private-sector counterparts. Students drawn to public interest work often cannot afford the summer that would launch them into it. A fund like the one provided by Jim and Dean Genes removes that calculation. It also gives students room to spend a summer inside a field they may not have heard of and perhaps find their calling.

The brothers made many cold calls, working from an environmental law directory. Eventually, Peter Drekmeier, policy director of the Tuolumne River Trust (now called Yosemite Rivers Alliance), connected Jim and Dean with Molly Melius at Stanford Law School. Melius, a lecturer in law, manages the Environmental and Natural Resources Law and Policy Program and directs Stanford's Lawyers for a Sustainable Economy initiative. Her counterpart at UC Davis, Professor Karrigan Bork, was a law school classmate. The brothers brought their idea to both Melius and Börk.

“Thanks to the support and creativity of Stanford Law School, we were able to create summer internship programs at both Stanford and UC Davis exposing first- and second-year law students to river and watershed policy,” Jim says.

The Genes Family Fund was established in 2022 and has since supported twenty-two Stanford Law students in obtaining summer funding to do this essential policy work, with up to six more fellows to be named in fall 2026. Internship hosts have included the U.S. Department of Justice, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the Stanford Environmental Law Clinic.

Because the internship program runs concurrently at UC Davis, that twenty-two figure counts only the Stanford side. As of fall 2026, another twenty-six law students have participated in the Davis program, which also focuses on river and watershed policy.

And while many of the recipients arrive at law school and their 1L summer knowing what field of work they want to go into, not all do. For quite a few, this summer experience is what directs them. To date, at least six of the Stanford students have gone on to work in environmental law.

One UC Davis student had hoped to work in environmental, tribal, and community-based law, and thanks to an internship the Genes Family Fund supported, she connected with the job of her dreams. In 2025, two Stanford Law students worked on an amicus brief filed on behalf of Professor Börk and other UC Davis faculty in a Ninth Circuit water case, San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo.

While these achievements are gratifying, Jim and Dean don't consider them the only measures of the program's success. All law students who participate, regardless of the direction they choose for their futures, come to understand, on some level, the importance of water policy and watershed conservation.

“We’re playing the long game,” Jim says. “We want to expose young people who may come back to water rights at a later point in their lives—be it via career, volunteering, or philanthropy. An internship between the first and second year is a very good time to plant the seed.”

Jim and Dean get to see where the students are placed each summer and where they land afterward. It is philanthropy with an immediate return. To that end, they welcome anyone who wants to contribute to the fund, or even adopt it, name and all.

Their aspiration now is to transform their philanthropic support into a permanent Stanford endowment that funds this internship for law students in perpetuity, and then to do the same at UC Davis, so that both internships outlast them.

“Rivers and their watersheds shaped us and have always been an important part of our lives. We want to ensure future generations have the same opportunities we did,” Jim says.

-VV

Stanford Law School research is at the center of a new Atlantic article examining what happens to political spending aft...
08/27/2026

Stanford Law School research is at the center of a new Atlantic article examining what happens to political spending after fatal school shootings.

The study finds that pro-gun PACs sharply increase contributions to favored House candidates in competitive districts after children are killed in school shootings. Eric Baldwin, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Stanford Law School, led the study, along with co-authors John J. Donohue III, the C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law, and Takuma Iwasaki, a Stanford Law JSD candidate.

“The data shows that the gun lobby saves its political firepower for the moments when public grief is greatest and lawmakers are under the most pressure to act,” Baldwin tells The Atlantic.

“School Shootings and the Strategic Contributions of Gun Policy PACs in U.S. House Elections” was published earlier this year in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Read it here: https://brnw.ch/21x5g5h

Read more in The Atlantic (subscription may be required): https://brnw.ch/21x5g5i

“The more daylight there is, the more trouble for Meta.”In the closely watched federal trial now underway in Oakland, Pr...
08/26/2026

“The more daylight there is, the more trouble for Meta.”

In the closely watched federal trial now underway in Oakland, Professor Nora Freeman Engstrom says a key question is what the proceedings bring to light about any gap between Meta’s internal understanding of the risks to young users and what it told the public.

The case was brought by state attorneys general and centers on allegations that Meta designed Facebook and Instagram to keep young people compulsively engaged, misled the public about the risks, and collected data from children under 13 in violation of federal law.

In a new Q&A, Engstrom puts the case in context and explains why its outcome could matter well beyond this courtroom, with thousands of related lawsuits waiting in the wings. Read more:

(Originally published by Stanford Report on August 25, 2026.) Four states kicked off a closely-watched trial against Meta last week, alleging that the

Technology can amplify division at extraordinary speed. Peacemaking in the Digital Age explored how to harness it to do ...
08/25/2026

Technology can amplify division at extraordinary speed. Peacemaking in the Digital Age explored how to harness it to do the opposite.

Grande Lum, faculty director of the Martin Daniel Gould Center for Conflict Resolution, recently presided over the daylong conference, focused on how technology can help bridge divides. Co-hosted with the California Civil Rights Department’s Community Conflict Resolution Unit and Life Comes From It, a grant-making and movement-building organization, the event brought together experts in conflict resolution, civil rights, technology, media, and restorative justice.

Presenters included Colin Rule, CEO and president of Mediate(.com) and ODR(.com); Kia Sims, COO of AISHA AI, who discussed a chatbot designed with inclusivity and cultural relevance in mind; UCLA professor Sarah Roberts, on AI, media, technology, and civil society; University of Denver law professor Oladeji Tiamiyu, on digital art as a tool for healing and racial reconciliation; and William Froehlich, director of Ohio State Law School’s Divided Community Project, on using AI in community conflict resolution.

Stanford Law School alum Ryan Daniels, JD '20, is reimagining legal practice through Crosby AI, an AI-native law firm fo...
08/24/2026

Stanford Law School alum Ryan Daniels, JD '20, is reimagining legal practice through Crosby AI, an AI-native law firm focused on commercial contracts. In a recent episode of AI Sidebar with Irene Liu, Daniels discusses what distinguishes an AI-native firm from traditional practices: a corporate structure built for long-term technology investment, incentives aligned with productivity rather than billable hours, and systems that encode legal judgment for AI agents.

Listen to the full conversation: https://brnw.ch/21x5aoi

In a new Washington Post op-ed, Stanford Law Professor Daniel Ho argues that obsolete laws and reporting requirements qu...
08/20/2026

In a new Washington Post op-ed, Stanford Law Professor Daniel Ho argues that obsolete laws and reporting requirements quietly waste enormous amounts of public servants’ time and undermine the government's ability to deliver. His team at Stanford’s RegLab is using AI to scan billions of words of legal code and identify the “policy sludge” that humans could never realistically find at scale.

“Clearing out remnants of outdated law is not deregulation for deregulation’s sake," he writes. "It ensures public servants can spend time on what matters.” Read more:

(Originally published by The Washington Post on August 19, 2026.) Every year, the Federal Reserve’s board of governors sends Congress a report on th

“The office is independent only so long as the president permits it to be.”In a new Los Angeles Times op-ed, Stanford La...
08/19/2026

“The office is independent only so long as the president permits it to be.”

In a new Los Angeles Times op-ed, Stanford Law Professor George Fisher argues that a constitutional amendment might be necessary to prevent future attorneys general from becoming the president’s “political cudgel.”
Read more: https://brnw.ch/21x53i3

Address

559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA
94305

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Stanford Law School posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share