Beyond the Supreme Court: Where Legal Scholarship Currently Shapes the Law
Law reviews aren’t just for the Supreme Court—courts nationwide are citing them in big ways and here are the data to show it.
When people talk about courts citing law reviews, they usually mean the rare moment when a U.S. Supreme Court opinion drops a footnote to the Harvard Law Review. But that narrow lens misses the broader — and arguably more important — picture. Across the judiciary, from state supreme courts to federal district courts and appellate panels, judges are regularly turning to scholarship to shape reasoning, interpret doctrine, and resolve hard cases.
This data, tracking which courts cite law reviews most often, offers a ground-level view of how scholarship actually moves through the system. It shows which courts are the most engaged consumers of academic work, highlights regional and doctrinal patterns, and helps explain why some journals — even lower-ranked or regional ones — get cited again and again. In short, it reveals that the real engine of law review influence isn’t just at the top — it’s distributed across the judiciary.
Between the beginning of October and end of December 2024, courts across the country cited dozens of law reviews in their opinions—some predictably prestigious, others surprisingly off the beaten path. This analysis tracks them all and shows where legal scholarship is having the greatest impact.
Top Cited Journals
Dominance of the Usual Suspects
Drawing on data about repeated citations and comparing it to the MetaRank Comparison of law journal prestige, this snapshot reveals which publications are making an impact on the judiciary. From the usual elite suspects to unexpected regional standouts, here’s what the data tells us about where courts are finding persuasive legal scholarship.
In recent months, courts around the country leaned heavily on a familiar roster of elite law reviews. The Harvard Law Review led the way with a staggering 39 citations, followed by Columbia (27), Penn (20), Yale (17), and Michigan (14). These are all top-10 journals on the MetaRank Comparison, so their presence at the top of the judicial citation charts comes as no surprise. Likewise, Stanford, NYU, Chicago, Virginia, and Duke all saw healthy citation counts, underscoring their consistent practical influence alongside academic prestige.
And it’s not just the elite journals making waves. From Chapman Law Review in California to Wyoming Law Review and Faulkner Law Review in Alabama, the data reveals that regional and specialty journals are increasingly shaping judicial opinions—proving that the right article, on the right issue, can reach far beyond its expected audience.