The October 2026 issue of Boston College Law Review is now available. This issue features four Articles and two student Notes. Summaries of the six pieces can be found below. The full texts are also available on the BCLR website.
Articles
No Jab, No Job: Assessing the Religious Sincerity of Vaccine-Exemption Seekers by Dallan F. Flake
The COVID-19 pandemic brought increased attention to the challenges of evaluating employees’ religious objections to workplace vaccine mandates under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This article explores the challenges employers and courts face in distinguishing sincere religious beliefs from objections rooted in personal, political, or philosophical views. The Article identifies inconsistencies in how courts assess religious sincerity, and the resulting consequences of occasionally contradictory case law. It also highlights areas of judicial consensus that may serve as the foundation for a more consistent framework. Ultimately, the Article proposes a clearer approach to evaluating religious sincerity while ensuring that genuine religious beliefs receive the protections guaranteed by Title VII.
Parental Authority Over Children’s Litigation by Lisa V. Martin
This Article examines how limitations on parental authority can prevent children from accessing the civil justice system and enforcing their legal rights. It focuses on two major obstacles, the requirement that parents obtain legal counsel to represent their children in court and the unclear legal rules governing parents’ authority to litigate on their children’s behalf. Through an analysis of federal procedural doctrines, the Article highlights the inconsistencies and inequities that create barriers for families, particularly those with limited financial resources. It proposes a “familial framework” that recognizes parental litigation authority as a unified right to advocate for a child’s interests, including the ability to make litigation decisions without counsel absent a conflict of interest. Ultimately, the Article seeks to promote greater access to justice while respecting both parental authority and children’s legal rights.
Government Failure and Corporate Reform by Aneil Kovvali
The debate between shareholder primacy and stakeholder governance centers on whether corporate leaders should prioritize shareholder profits or consider broader social interests, such as workers’ rights and environmental protection. Many scholars view stakeholder governance as a necessary response to government failure, arguing that corporations should address social concerns when government regulation falls short. This Article, however, challenges that assumption by questioning whether a lack of regulation constitutes government failure rather than a reflection of democratic disagreement. It also examines the inherent limitations of government regulation, including areas where legal intervention may be ineffective or inappropriate. Ultimately, it offers a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between corporate governance, government regulation, and corporate responsibility.
Administrative Decentralization by David Fontana
This Article examines the geographic centralization of the administrative state in Washington, D.C., and how administrative law limits the authority of federal officials located elsewhere. It explores the role of geographic centralization in the broader debate over the legitimacy and effectiveness of the administrative state, particularly amid recent efforts to restructure federal agencies and limit administrative authority. The Article provides an overview of how administrative power is divided between officials inside and outside Washington and considers whether that distribution appropriately serves the goals of federal agencies. Fontana argues that greater authority should be given to officials outside Washington in circumstances where their geographic distance can provide valuable local perspectives because they are in a place that is distant and therefore different from Washington. At the same time, it recognizes that certain administrative functions are best performed by officials with deeper connections to the federal government and its central operations. Ultimately, the Article proposes a more balanced approach to distributing administrative authority that accounts for the distinct needs and functions of individual agencies.
Notes
Harnessing “Harass” for Habitat Protection: The Alternative to “Harm” in ESA “Take” Claims by Abigail C. Feldman
The Note examines how conservation groups can use Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to protect wildlife habitats following regulatory changes that reduce longstanding habitat protections. It focuses on the potential for conservation groups to bring “take” claims based on the harassment of wildlife through habitat modification or destruction, rather than relying on claims of “harm.” The Note explores how the ESA’s definition of “harass” may provide an alternative legal avenue for challenging projects that threaten endangered and threatened species by altering their habitats. Ultimately, it evaluates the effectiveness of harassment-based claims in strengthening habitat protections and expanding the legal tools available to conservation groups.
Pay No Attention to the History Behind the Curtain: The Wicked Problem of Historical Amicus Briefs by Elizabeth Langa
The growing use of historical amicus curiae briefs has increased their influence on judicial decision-making, particularly as courts increasingly rely on originalist methods of legal interpretation. However, these briefs face little procedural oversight, leaving questions about the reliability of historical evidence, the qualifications of its authors, and the methodologies used. The Note examines the tension between historical scholarship and legal advocacy and considers how insufficiently scrutinized historical arguments may affect judicial decisions. It evaluates potential reforms, including enhanced disclosure requirements, expert screening, and evidentiary safeguards modeled after Daubert. Ultimately, it proposes greater oversight to promote transparency, historical accuracy, and reliability in the use of historical evidence by courts.