From the Stanford Law Review editors:

The Stanford Law Review is currently accepting articles for the summer submissions cycle. We expect the cycle to be open for a couple more weeks, but we review articles on a rolling basis, so we strongly encourage authors to submit articles as soon as possible.

SLR is particularly enthusiastic about pieces touching on administrative law and executive power for inclusion in our 2026 Symposium, The APA at Eighty: What’s Next for Administrative Law?  We highly encourage anyone submitting articles on these topics to also indicate interest in being considered for our symposium. All articles selected for our symposium will be published in a standard print issue of SLR, and authors will also participate in our annual conference on Stanford’s campus in the early months of 2026. Articles considered for symposium undergo the same anonymous review process and receive consideration along the same editorial standards (including word count) as any other article submitted to SLR. To be considered for our symposium, please send a short message via email to articles@stanfordlawreview.org indicating your interest after submitting your manuscript through Scholastica. 

For more information, here is the full call for papers:

Stanford Law Review Symposium 2026

The APA at Eighty: What’s Next for Administrative Law?

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is the “bill of rights” of the modern administrative state.[1] Passed by Congress and signed by President Truman in 1946, the APA establishes the central framework ensuring that “governors shall be governed” and “regulators shall be regulated.”[2] This landmark statute lays the foundation for all forms of executive rulemaking, agency adjudication, judicial review, and public participation in the regulatory process.

Though Congress has not substantially amended the APA in the last eight decades, its vision of the administrative state has nevertheless undergone seismic shifts at the hands of the judiciary. In recent terms, the Court has fundamentally changed the appointments and removals of administrative officers,[3] the administrative adjudication of individuals’ rights,[4] the role of the federal courts in interpreting regulations,[5] and agencies’ understanding of their statutory grants.[6]

The Stanford Law Review (SLR) will convene a Symposium in the winter of 2026 both to look back on the last century of administrative law and to look forward to the next. SLR invites authors to submit manuscripts that address doctrinal, historical, empirical, or normative aspects of administrative law generally or specific areas of administration (e.g., environmental law, immigration law, national security). Selected manuscripts will appear in print in Volume 78 of SLR.

Sample topics include, but are by no means limited to:

• What remains of the APA’s vision of the regulatory state? What, if anything, should replace it?
•  What has been the impact of the APA? How has it failed or succeeded?
• What is the proper role of judicial review in the administrative state?
• Do the Major Questions or Non-Delegation Doctrines apply to national security or immigration in the same way they apply to environmental or securities regulation?
• More broadly, are developments in the Court’s administrative law jurisprudence trans-substantive? Or are they limited to particular areas of regulation?
• How might historical sources improve, limit, or complicate our understandings of particular aspects of administration?
• What role can state law or local regulators play in a time of federal administrative retreat or deregulation?
• What are the justice implications of the Court’s recent decisions? How do they affect various subpopulations differently?
• What impact might we expect from recent and upcoming decisions, such as Loper Bright,[7] Corner Post,[8] Jarkesy,[9] San Francisco v. EPA,[10] Calumet Shreveport Refining,[11] Wages and White Lion Investments,[12] VanDerStok,[13] and Eagle County?[14] 
• What might lower court decisions tell us about upcoming changes to administration more generally?[15]

How to submit:  We strongly encourage all authors to submit an article if they believe it to be well suited to our theme. To do so, please submit your manuscript through the Scholastica submissions portal. After submitting your manuscript, please send a message indicating your interest in being considered for SLR’s Symposium to Volume 78 Senior Articles Editor, Gwyneth Hochhausler, either by email at articles@stanfordlawreview.org or via Scholastica. If your manuscript is not selected for the Symposium, it will still receive full consideration for general publication in Volume 78 of SLR. Articles considered for Symposium undergo the same blind review process and receive consideration along the same editorial standards (including word count) as any other article submitted to SLR.

All authors selected for the 2026 Symposium will have their pieces published in Issue Six of SLR’s Volume 78. As a condition of publication, all authors must participate and present, in-person, at our Symposium Conference, which will likely take place in February 2026.

When and Where: The 2026 Symposium will take place at Stanford Law School in winter of 2026. Participants’ travel and accommodations will be provided by SLR.

Questions? Please submit any and all questions to Volume 78 Senior Symposium Editor, Josh Petersen, by email at jrp95@stanford.edu.

---

[1] 92 Cong. Rec. 2149 (1946) (statement of Sen. McCarran).

[2] H.R. Rep. No. 79-1980, at 244 (1946).

[3] See United States v. Arthrex, Inc.,141 S. Ct. 1970, 1988 (2021) (appointment of inferior officers); Seila L. LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2211 (2020) (removal of single heads of independent agencies).

[4] See, e.g., SEC v. Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117, 2139 (2024) (limiting the SEC’s ability to enforce regulations without a jury trial).

[5] Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244, 2273 (2024) (overruling Chevron deference).

[6] See, e.g., West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2610-16 (2022) (invoking the major questions doctrine to overturn the EPA’s Clean Power Plan).

[7] Loper Bright, 144 S. Ct. 2244.

[8] Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 144 S. Ct. 2440 (2024).

[9] Jarkesy, 144 S. Ct. 2117.

[10] City & Cnty. of S.F. v. U.S. EPA, 75 F.4th 1074 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. granted sub nom. City & Cnty. of S.F. v. EPA, 144 S. Ct. 2578 (2024).

[11] Calumet Shreveport Refin., L.L.C. v. U.S. EPA, 86 F.4th 1121 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted sub nom. EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refin., L.L.C., 220 L. Ed. 2d 169 (Oct. 21, 2024).

[12] Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C. v. FDA., 90 F.4th 357 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. granted, 144 S. Ct. 2714 (2024).

[13] VanDerStok v. Garland, 86 F.4th 179 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. granted, 144 S. Ct. 1390 (2024).

[14] Eagle Cnty. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 82 F.4th 1152, (D.C. Cir. 2023), cert. granted sub nom. Seven Cnty. Infrastructure Coal. v. Eagle Cnty., 144 S. Ct. 2680 (2024).

[15] See, e.g., Ling Ritter, Note, Elephants in Mouseholes: The Major Questions Doctrine in the Lower Courts, 76 Stan. L. Rev. 1381.