Once a source of amusement for Chief Justice John Roberts, law reviews have evolved from their seemingly obscure academic discussions, such as "the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th century Bulgaria," into pivotal tools for conservative legal agendas. This transition highlights a growing trend where these scholarly publications are increasingly cited in judicial opinions, especially when traditional legal precedents do not support conservative policy goals.

Historically, law reviews have been platforms for legal scholars to explore a vast array of topics, some of which appeared esoteric or overly theoretical to practitioners of law, including judges. However, a recent article from The New Republic has shed light on how these academic publications, particularly those influenced by the Federalist Society (FedSoc), are being transformed into what some critics call "constitutional fan fiction." This term reflects a concern that these law reviews are beginning to deviate from rigorous legal analysis towards advocating for particular political viewpoints, particularly in areas where historical legal documents and precedents are ambiguous or contrary to conservative values.

One significant area of focus is the reinterpretation of the Birthright Citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A growing body of scholarship pushed by conservative ex-clerks and legal scholars is attempting to reshape the understanding of this clause, which has longstanding implications for immigration and citizenship law in the United States. These academic endeavors are not merely theoretical; they have real-world impacts as they increasingly make their way into court citations and judicial rulings, potentially shaping the landscape of American constitutional law.

This trend raises questions about the balance between academic freedom in legal scholarship and the potential for scholarly work to be co-opted as a tool for specific political ends. It also reflects a broader strategy by conservative legal circles to establish a body of intellectual work that can be used to support judicial decisions that might otherwise lack robust support from existing legal precedents.

As these dynamics continue to unfold, the role of law reviews in the judicial process warrants close scrutiny. The shift from obscure academic discussions to influential judicial tools illustrates a significant transformation in how legal knowledge is produced and utilized, underscoring the ever-evolving nature of law and its intersection with politics.