The Harvard Law Review, April 2015, is offered in a digital edition. Contents include the annual Developments in the Law survey of a particular area of legal concern; this year's topic is Policing. Other contents include: • Article, "Consent Procedures and American Federalism," by Bridget Fahey • Essay, "Anticipatory Remedies for Takings," by Thomas W. Merrill • Book Review, "How a 'Lawless' China Made Modern America: An Epic Told in Orientalism," by Carol G.S. Tan Specific subjects studied in Developments in the Law—Policing are: Policing and Profit, Policing Students, Policing Immigrant Communities, and Considering Police Body Cameras. In addition, the issue features student commentary on Recent Cases, including such subjects as: the business judgment rule and mergers; whistleblowing under Dodd-Frank and extraterritoriality; senate redistricting in New York; postmortem rights of publicity; standing and overlap of various tests used; informing one who pleads No Contest of collateral consequences; exceptions to New York marriage license requirement for out-of-state marriages; exclusionary rule for violations of Posse Comitatus restrictions; and extending federal forced labor statute to conduct criminalized under state law. Finally, the issue features several summaries of Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2500 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is Apr. 2015, the 6th issue of academic year 2014-2015 (Volume 128). The digital edition features active Contents, linked notes, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting.

Since the Cold War ended, China has become a global symbol of disregard for human rights, while the United States has positioned itself as the world’s chief exporter of the rule of law. How did lawlessness become an axiom about Chineseness rather than a fact needing to be verified empirically, and how did the United States assume the mantle of law’s universal appeal? In a series of wide-ranging inquiries, Teemu Ruskola investigates the history of “legal Orientalism”: a set of globally circulating narratives about what law is and who has it. For example, why is China said not to have a history of corporate law, as a way of explaining its “failure” to develop capitalism on its own? Ruskola shows how a European tradition of philosophical prejudices about Chinese law developed into a distinctively American ideology of empire, influential to this day. The first Sino-U.S. treaty in 1844 authorized the extraterritorial application of American law in a putatively lawless China. A kind of legal imperialism, this practice long predated U.S. territorial colonialism after the Spanish-American War in 1898, and found its fullest expression in an American district court’s jurisdiction over the “District of China.” With urgent contemporary implications, legal Orientalism lives on in the enduring damage wrought on the U.S. Constitution by late nineteenth-century anti-Chinese immigration laws, and in the self-Orientalizing reforms of Chinese law today. In the global politics of trade and human rights, legal Orientalism continues to shape modern subjectivities, institutions, and geopolitics in powerful and unacknowledged ways.

The Harvard Law Review, June 2015, is offered in a digital edition. Contents include: • Article, “Active Avoidance: The Modern Supreme Court and Legal Change,” by Neal Kumar Katyal and Thomas P. Schmidt • Article, “The Invention of Low-Value Speech,” by Genevieve Lakier • Book Review, “Crown and Constitution,” by Tara Helfman • Note, “Causation in Environmental Law: Lessons from Toxic Torts” In addition, the issue features extensive student commentary on Recent Cases and policy positions, including such subjects as: corporate board of directors' duties in mergers under the Revlon doctrine; the propriety of a Delaware corporation's bylaws designating a non-Delaware exclusive forum; availability of habeas corpus review for sentencing error as to 'career offender' enhancement; whether remand orders can be vacated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3); whether housing providers can delay review of reasonable accommodations under fair housing law by requesting extraneous information; and, as to immigration law, analysis of the opinion by the Office of Legal Counsel endorsing President Obama's Executive Order on deferred action for parental accountability. Finally, the issue features summaries of Recent Publications, as well as a detailed and cumulative Index for all eight issues of Volume 128. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2300 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is June 2015, the eighth and final issue of academic year 2014-2015 (Volume 128). This quality digital edition from Quid Pro Books features active Contents, linked notes, active URLs in notes, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting.

The Harvard Law Review, January 2015, No. 3 of Volume 128, is offered in a digital edition. Contents include: • Article, “Uncovering Coordinated Interagency Adjudication,” by Bijal Shah • Note, “Deference and the Federal Arbitration Act: The NLRB’s Determination of Substantive Statutory Rights” • Note, “Education Policy Litigation as Devolution” • Note, “Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures” • Note, “Copyright Reform and the Takings Clause” In addition, the issue features student commentary on Recent Cases and policy resolutions, including such subjects as constitutional protection for teacher tenure, suspicionless street stop of suspect’s companion, warrants to search foreign emails, confrontation clause in sentence selection phase of capital case, subject matter jurisdiction of tribal courts, physician inquiries into gun ownership and freedom of speech, reviewability of FDA inaction on pet drug products, and veto of a UN Security Council resolution on Syrian conflict. Finally, the issue features several summaries of Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2500 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is January 2015, the third issue of academic year 2014-2015 (Volume 128). The digital edition features active Contents, linked notes, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting.

The Harvard Law Review, February 2015, is offered in a digital edition. Contents include: • Article, "The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice," Daniel Epps • Book Review, "Running Government Like a Business ... Then and Now," Jon D. Michaels • Note, "International Norms and Politics in the Marshall Court's Slave Trade Cases" • Note, "Congress's Power to Define the Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship" • Note, "It's About Time (Place and Manner): Why and How Congress Must Act to Protect Access to Early Voting" • Note, "The Psychology of Cruelty: Recognizing Grave Mental Harm in American Prisons" In addition, the issue features student commentary on Recent Cases, Legislation, and Executive Orders, including such subjects as: whether false claims used to advise or encourage suicide are protected speech; whether pollutants from rail yards are "disposal" of solid waste; class action standing of absent class members in certain BP oil spill claims; review of an SEC settlement; municipal bankruptcy and preemption; requiring on-the-record indigency proceedings prior to incarceration for failure to pay fines; and prohibition of federal government and contractor employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Finally, the issue features several summaries of Recent Publications. This issue of the Review is Feb. 2015, the fourth issue of academic year 2014-2015 (Volume 128). The digital edition features active Contents, linked notes, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting.

Winner of the Society of the Cincinnati History Prize, Society of the Cincinnati in the State of New Jersey Finalist, George Washington Prize A Choice Outstanding Academic Title of 2015 Generations of students have been taught that the American Revolution was a revolt against royal tyranny. In this revisionist account, Eric Nelson argues that a great many of our “founding fathers” saw themselves as rebels against the British Parliament, not the Crown. The Royalist Revolution interprets the patriot campaign of the 1770s as an insurrection in favor of royal power—driven by the conviction that the Lords and Commons had usurped the just prerogatives of the monarch. “The Royalist Revolution is a thought-provoking book, and Nelson is to be commended for reviving discussion of the complex ideology of the American Revolution. He reminds us that there was a spectrum of opinion even among the most ardent patriots and a deep British influence on the political institutions of the new country.” —Andrew O’Shaughnessy, Wall Street Journal “A scrupulous archaeology of American revolutionary thought.” —Thomas Meaney, The Nation “A powerful double-barrelled challenge to historiographical orthodoxy.” —Colin Kidd, London Review of Books “[A] brilliant and provocative analysis of the American Revolution.” —John Brewer, New York Review of Books

The April 2016 issue, Number 6, is the annual Developments in the Law special issue. The topic of this extensive contribution is "Indian Law," including specific focus on tribal executive branches, tribal authority to follow fresh pursuit onto nontribal land, reconsidering ICRA and rights, securing Indian voting rights, and indigenous people and extractive industries. In addition, the issue features these contents: • Article, "Reconstructivism: The Place of Criminal Law in Ethical Life," by Joshua Kleinfeld • Essay, "Rule of Law Tropes in National Security," by Shirin Sinnar • Book Review, "Coming into the Anthropocene," by Jedediah Purdy Furthermore, student commentary analyzes Recent Cases on excessive force and SWAT raids after "perfunctory" investigation; prior restraints and injunctions under copyright law; individual liability of FBI agents for detention of citizens abroad; religious establishment and display of the Ten Commandments; and charter schools as violations of state constitutional law. Finally, the issue includes four brief comments on Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is offered in a quality digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked footnotes, active URLs, legible tables, and proper ebook and Bluebook formatting. The Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. It comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2500 pages per volume. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This is the sixth issue of academic year 2015-2016.

The Harvard Law Review is offered in a digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked notes, and proper ebook formatting. The contents of Issue 7 include a Symposium on privacy and several contributions from leading legal scholars: Article, "Agency Self-Insulation Under Presidential Review," by Jennifer Nou Commentary, "The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: Myths and Realities," by Cass R. Sunstein SYMPOSIUM: PRIVACY AND TECHNOLOGY "Introduction: Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma," by Daniel J. Solove "What Privacy Is For," by Julie E. Cohen "The Dangers of Surveillance," by Neil M. Richards "The EU-U.S. Privacy Collision: A Turn to Institutions and Procedures," by Paul M. Schwartz "Toward a Positive Theory of Privacy Law," by Lior Jacob Strahilevitz Book Review, "Does the Past Matter? On the Origins of Human Rights," by Philip Alston A student Note explores "Enabling Television Competition in a Converged Market." In addition, extensive student analyses of Recent Cases discuss such subjects as First Amendment implications of falsely wearing military uniforms, First Amendment implications of public employment job duties, justiciability of claims that Scientologists violated trafficking laws, habeas corpus law, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Finally, the issue includes several summaries of Recent Publications. The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The Review comes out monthly from November through June and has roughly 2000 pages per volume. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions. This issue of the Review is May 2013, the 7th issue of academic year 2012-2013 (Volume 126).