The Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review (TP&CRLR) is a student-edited scholarly journal which provides a forum for the discussion of contemporary political and civil rights issues. Established in 1991, the TP&CRLR is now recognized as one of the top issue specific law reviews in the nation.

Articles reflect a spectrum of concerns ranging from immediate questions of law and policy to basic assumptions about the nature of individuals, groups, and institutions.

The purpose of the Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review is to publish a timely, first-rate law review devoted entirely to issues in the field of political and civil rights law which helps meet the need for serious scholarship in this area.

Journal News
New Article:
The Broad Jurisprudential Significance of Sosa v. Álvarez-Machain: An Honest Assessment of the Role of Federal Judges and Why Customary International Law Can Be More Effective than Constitutional Law for Redressing Serious Abuses
by Penny M. Venetis
Forthcoming Issue:
Stay tuned for information regarding the release of our next issue.
Congratulations to the 2012-2013 Editorial Board
The new editorial board has been nominated. Congratulations!
Political & Civil Rights News
9/1/11 - [Third Circuit] [Due Process, Immigration] - Pursuant to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 petitioner was detained for 1,072 days. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security that this statute allows only detetion for a reasonable length of time. If the length of detention exceeds the reasonable length of time the Government must grant him a hearing where the Government bears the burden of proof to establish that continued detention is necessary.

5/17/11 - [U.S. Senate] [4th Amend., Internet Privacy] - The ACLU reports that an important update to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 has been introduced in the Senate by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

5/16/11 - [U.S. Supreme Court] [4th Amend., Exigent Circumstances] - In Kentucky v. King, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to reverse the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision and held that the exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment. See also Opinion recap: Court articulates test for exigent circumstances on SCOTUSblog.