When the Supreme Court strikes down favored legislation, politicians cry judicial activism. When the law is one politicians oppose, the court is heroically righting a wrong. In our polarized moment of partisan fervor, the Supreme Court’s routine work of judicial review is increasingly viewed through a political lens, decried by one side or the other as judicial overreach, or “legislating from the bench.” But is this really the case? Keith E. Whittington asks in Repugnant Laws, a first-of-its-kind history of judicial review. A thorough examination of the record of judicial review requires first a comprehensive inventory of relevant cases. To this end, Whittington revises the extant catalog of cases in which the court has struck down a federal statute and adds to this, for the first time, a complete catalog of cases upholding laws of Congress against constitutional challenges. With reference to this inventory, Whittington is then able to offer a reassessment of the prevalence of judicial review, an account of how the power of judicial review has evolved over time, and a persuasive challenge to the idea of an antidemocratic, heroic court. In this analysis, it becomes apparent that that the court is political and often partisan, operating as a political ally to dominant political coalitions; vulnerable and largely unable to sustain consistent opposition to the policy priorities of empowered political majorities; and quasi-independent, actively exercising the power of judicial review to pursue the justices’ own priorities within bounds of what is politically tolerable. The court, Repugnant Laws suggests, is a political institution operating in a political environment to advance controversial principles, often with the aid of political leaders who sometimes encourage and generally tolerate the judicial nullification of federal laws because it serves their own interests to do so. In the midst of heated battles over partisan and activist Supreme Court justices, Keith Whittington’s work reminds us that, for better or for worse, the court reflects the politics of its time.

The January 2014 issue (Volume 127, Number 3) includes the following articles and student contributions: * Article, "For-Profit Public Enforcement," by Margaret H. Lemos and Max Minzner * Book Review, "Technological Determinism and Its Discontents," by Christopher S. Yoo * Note, "More than a Formality: The Case for Meaningful Substantive Reasonableness Review" * Note, "Appointing State Attorneys General: Evaluating the Unbundled State Executive" * Note, "The Devil Wears Trademark: How the Fashion Industry Has Expanded Trademark Doctrine to Its Detriment" In addition, student case notes explore recent cases on misleading law school employment data, the First Amendment religious rights of for-profit corporations, regulation of nuclear energy, forensic search of laptops at the border, search of cellphone date incident to arrest, obscene or lewd student speech, and access to polling places for news-gathering purposes. Finally, the issue includes several summaries of Recent Publications. The issue is offered in a quality digital edition, featuring active Contents, linked notes, active URLs in notes, and proper ebook formatting. The contents of Number 3 include scholarly essays by leading academic figures, as well as substantial student research. The Review is a student-run organization whose primary purpose is to publish a journal of legal scholarship. The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School; student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions.