The National National Constitution Center-affiliated High School Law Review has released its second volume, featuring thirteen student-authored essays spanning administrative law, First Amendment doctrine, and the constitutional status of Indigenous child welfare law.
The publication is run by Studium, a student constitutional-law organisation whose advisory board includes Jeffrey Rosen, president and chief executive of the National Constitution Center and a graduate of Harvard College, Oxford University, and Yale Law School. He was recognised by the French government in 2024 as a Chevalier in the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. Also on the board are Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); Diane Wood, former chief judge of the Seventh Circuit; Judge Doug Ginsburg of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Professor Adam White.
What the High School Law Review’s Second Volume Contains
The thirteen essays in Volume II address some of the most contested questions before the courts. One piece, by Eileen Wang, examines Haaland v. Brackeen, reading Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent alongside Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence. The Supreme Court decided that case on 15 June 2023, affirming the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In his dissent, Justice Alito argued that the ICWA ‘violates the fundamental structure of our constitutional order’ and that Congress’s authority over Indian affairs does not allow it to promote tribal interests over a child’s best interests or require state judges to follow tribal priorities. That position, according to the UNC School of Government analysis of the decision, stands in contrast to the majority’s reasoning.
Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined as to Parts I and III, elaborated on the history of the federal government’s relationship with Indian tribes, according to Oyez. Wang’s essay engages with both opinions directly, a level of doctrinal analysis uncommon in secondary-school legal writing.
Other contributions take on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court case that overruled the Chevron doctrine, examining its potential implications for scientific agency authority. Morgan Cole’s piece, titled ‘Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in the Upside Down’, argues that a fight over fishery salaries could create an unintentional refuge for science within regulatory law. A further essay by Benjamin Berer critiques the recklessness standard applied in Counterman v. Colorado, arguing it fails victims of online threats.
Other essays address campaign finance, the Alien Tort Statute, the prior restraint doctrine as applied in the digital age following New York Times Co. v. United States, and the absence of guaranteed counsel in housing court proceedings. A piece by Emma Di Domenico calls for a federal privacy framework governing consumer DNA databases.
The Case for Student Constitutional Engagement
Olivia Eve Gross, the founder of Studium, sets out the publication’s purpose in her introduction to Volume II. ‘What began as a simple conviction,’ she writes, ‘that students deserve the opportunity to wrestle directly with our nation’s most consequential legal questions, has grown into a national movement.’
Gross places particular weight on what she describes as ‘agreeable disagreement’: the practice of understanding the strongest versions of opposing arguments, separating ideas from identities, and questioning one’s own assumptions. ‘Disagreement, when approached with curiosity and generosity,’ she writes, ‘strengthens rather than weakens a community of learners.’
The volume also credits teachers explicitly, framing their role as transforming constitutional law ‘from a body of primary sources to be studied into a practice to be lived.’ The language is deliberate: the publication positions itself not merely as an outlet for student writing but as a mechanism for civic formation.
The SCOTUSblog case page for Haaland v. Brackeen illustrates the complexity of the material these secondary-school authors are engaging with: a majority opinion, two concurrences, and two separate dissents, each advancing a distinct theory of congressional power over Indian affairs.
Volume II of the High School Law Review is available now. Studium has indicated the publication intends to expand into further schools and states, and submissions for future volumes remain open to secondary-school students nationally.
