Submission Information

Minnesota Law Review

The Minnesota Law Review is no longer accepting submissions for Volume 100. Submissions for Volume 101 will open in spring of 2016. Articles should be submitted through Scholastica.

The Minnesota Law Review will consider for publication in its print edition any original work focusing on any topic or field in the law. Citations in all manuscripts should conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (20th ed. 2010). The Minnesota Law Review does not accept submissions from law students.


Headnotes is now accepting submissions for Volume 100. Articles should be submitted through Scholastica, which can be accessed here.

Headnotes is the Minnesota Law Review online companion journal. The Law Review will consider publishing in Headnotes any articles, book reviews, and, especially, any piece responding to any recent Article appearing in our print volume. When submitting to Headnotes, please keep in mind the following:

1. Length of articles should be kept between 5 and 30 pages

2. While we do take time-sensitive pieces, please keep in mind that we cannot publish all such pieces we receive due to administrative constraints.

3. Headnotes does not accept pieces from current law students, graduate students, or undergraduate students. It does accept submissions from law school faculty, attorneys, and practitioners.

Citations in all manuscripts should conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (20th ed. 2015). Headnotes does not accept submissions from law students.

Publication Agreements

The Minnesota Law Review offers publication agreements that conform to Open Access Law Journal principles, which give authors great freedom to distribute their works. Please review a copy of our model publication agreement for further information.

The Minnesota Law Review is published six times a year in November, December, February, April, May, and June by the Minnesota Law Review Foundation. Headnotes currently publishes  three times a year (fall, winter, and spring).


De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]