U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal
Editors: Matthew Adler and Brian Bix
Duke University Law School and University of Minnesota

This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts that concern the appropriate methods for interpreting the Constitution and the role of courts in the process of interpretation. Topics covered include, among many others: originalism, textualism, structural approaches, representation-reinforcement, or moral reasoning as interpretive methods; stare decisis in constitutional interpretation; popular constitutionalism; departmentalism; constitutional interpretation by Congress or the President; judicial supremacy; judicial activism and judicial restraint; the judicial "underenforcement" of constitutional norms; judicial use of prophylactic rules; Article III limitations on constitutional adjudication; the "political question" doctrine; the historical origins and development of judicial review; the positive political theory of constitutional adjudication; and the jurisprudential underpinnings of constitutional adjudication. We welcome a broad range of approaches that address these and related topics, including both doctrinal scholarship and more theoretical work grounded in economics, history, literary theory, philosophy, political science, psychology, or sociology.

Click here to Browse our Electronic Library to view our archives of abstracts and associated full text papers published in this journal.

Sample Issue

U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal Advisory Board
Click on the individual's name below to view the editor or advisory board member's author home page.

Editors: Matthew Adler and Brian Bix
Duke University Law School and University of Minnesota


Akhil Amar

Lee Bollinger

Paul Brest

Kenneth L. Karst

Lawrence Lessig

Kathleen Sullivan

Cass R. Sunstein